Seminars del CLT – 14 octubre 2016

The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance*

Jan Casalicchio (Università di Trento) 2. Pseudo-relative clauses in Italian and French: properties and previous analyses
jan.casalicchio@unitn.it
2.1 Properties of Pseudo-Relative clauses
Seminars del CLT Radford (1975) has shown that PRs have some properties which distinguish them from ordinary
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 14 octubre 2016 relative clauses; the main ones are:

1. Introduction 1. The antecedent of the PR may be a proper noun, or can be cliticised:

• The AThEME project: see power-point presentation (4) a. Ho visto Marco che correva
(I) have seen Marco that run
• The analysed structure: b. L’ho visto che correva
In the second part of this presentation, I discuss the structure of so-called Pseudo-relative clauses him I.have seen that run
(henceforth, PRs) in Romance, focussing mainly on Italian. PRs are a clause type which is used in
2. In the PR it is mandatory to use the complementizer che and it is not possible to replace it with
most Romance varieties in many contexts where a Small Clause with a stage level predicate occurs:
the relative pronoun il quale. In French, the form qui is used:
(1) a. Ho visto Luca che correva (Italian)
(5) a. Sento il cane che abbaia
b. J'ai vu Luc qui courait (French)
I.hear the dog that barks
(I) have seen Luca that run
b. *Sento il cane il quale abbaia
c. Vi o Luís que saía de casa (European Portuguese)
I.hear the dog the which barks
(I) saw the Luis that went-out of home
(6) Je vois Marie qui / *que mange
(2) a. La Maria és a l’església que parla amb el capellà (Catalan - Sabadell)
I see Marie qui / *que eats
b. Maria ie te dlieja que rejona cun l preve (Gardenese Ladin)
(the) Maria is at (the) church that speaks with the priest 3. The tense of the embedded clause is anaphoric, i.e. the events described by the matrix verb and
(3) a. Con Ana que llora, no podemos salir (Spanish) by the Pseudo-relative clause are simultaneous:2
b. Cu Anna ca sta malə, nun putimmə partì (Napoletan) (7) a. Lo vedo che attraversa la strada
With Anna that cries/is ill, not we.can leave
him (I) see that crosses the street 'I see him crossing the street'
b. *Lo vedo che ha attraversato/attraversava/attraverserà la strada
However, the distribution and syntactic properties of PRs varies from language to language. In this him (I) see that has crossed/crossed/will cross the street
presentation I will focus mainly on Italian, and present a descriptive comparison with the Ibero-
romance languages 5. The embedded verb must usually be stage-level:
(8) a. La vedo che canta
• Aims of the second part her (I) see that sings
1. To claim that PRs can be divided in four groups, with different syntactic and semantic properties; b. *La vedo che si chiama Maria
2. To propose that despite of these differences, PRs can always be analysed as CP-like Small her (I) see that self calls Maria
Clauses (SCs), with an EPP-feature in ForceP;
4. There is usually a subject-object asymmetry, i.e. the 'antecedent' of the Pseudo-relative clause is
3. To show that there are also PRs whose 'antecedent'1 is coindexed with an object of the PR, and
usually coindexed with its subject (but see § 6):
that they have a similar structure as the other PRs.
(9) a. Ho visto Luigi che salutava Maria
*
A previous version of this talk forms part of my dissertation (Casalicchio 2013) and was also presented at Going (I) have seen Luigi that greeted Maria 'I saw Luigi saying hello to Maria'
Romance 2014 in Lisbon (Casalicchio in press). I want to thank my tutor Cecilia Poletto, and moreover Paola Benincà, b. *Ho visto Luigii che Maria salutava Luigii
Andrea Padovan, all my former colleagues at the University of Padova and the audience of Going Romance 2014. The
AThEME-project I present here and the new parts of my talk have received funding from the European Union’s
(I) have seen Luigi that Maria greeted
Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no.
613465.
1
I use the term 'antecedent' here for expository reasons. This does not entail that I suggest that PRs are a type of relative 2
There are some exceptions to this property, which I discuss in Casalicchio 2013 (see also Scarano 2002). However, the
clauses. generalisation still holds in most contexts.
2
Jan Casalicchio, The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance Seminars del CLT – 14 octubre 2016

3. Cross-linguistic comparison
2.2 Distribution of PRs in Italian
3.1 Distribution in the Iberian Peninsula
PRs are used in many different contexts (about 20), which correspond exactly to the distribution of
predicative gerunds in Spanish, and of prepositional infinitives in Eur. Portuguese. They can be Context Spanish Catalan E. Port.
resumed in the following groups (cf. Cinque 1992, Casalicchio 2013): Córdoba Sabadell Mallorca Alghero Lisbon
(10a-b) Perceptive verbs
1. The antecedent of the PR is the complement of a transitive verb: a. Vi a Juan que se comía una manzana 3/3 ok ok ok (ok)
(10) a. Ho visto Gianni che mangiava una mela (perceptive verb: vedere) b. Mira a Javier que corre 2/3 * * * ok
(I) have seen Gianni that ate an apple (10c) To have
b. Guarda Giulio che corre (perceptive verb: guardare) Tengo un amigo que me pinta la casa 2/3 ok ok ok ok
look Giulio that runs (10d) Soportar
c. Ho un amico che mi sta imbiancando la casa (presentational 'to have') No soporto a Juan que fuma en casa 2/3(?) ok * ok *
(I) have a friend that me is painting the house (11a) Existential hay
d. Non sopporto Gianni e Luigi che fumano in casa. (other verbs: soportar) Hay un hombre que te espera 3/3 -- -- -- ok
Not (I) stand G. and L. that smoke at home (11a) Presentative és/hi ha/hi és
És/Hi ha/Hi és na Maria que plora com -- ok ok ok --
2. The PR and the matrix verb share the same subject: una desesperada
(11) a. C'è Maria che piange come una disperata. (presentational c'è) (11b) Locative constructions
c'è Maria that cries like a desperate María está en la iglesia que habla con el * ok ok * *
b. Il cane è là che dorme. (locative expressions) cura
the dog is there that sleeps (11c) Predicative of the subject
c. Maria lasciò la stanza che piangeva. (free adjunct PR) Luis salió de la reunión que no quise ok -- -- -- --
Maria left the room that (she) cried hablar con nadie
d. I bambini che giocano agli anziani mi fanno/fa ridere (DP-modifier) Luis volvió a casa oliendo a vino * -- -- -- *
the children that play at-the elder me make/makes laugh (11d) DP-modifier
Los niños que juegan a los ancianos me 2/3 ok? ok? ok? ok?
3. The PR is in a Prepositional Phrase (PP): hacen reír
(12) a. Con Maria che urla come una disperata, non riesco a sentire la tv. (absolute constr.) (12a) Absolute con
With Maria that cries like a desperate, not (I) can to hear the tv Con mi hermana que llora, no puedo salir 2/3 ok? ok? * ???
b. Abbiamo visitato Parigi con Paolo che ci faceva da guida. (adjunct PP) (12b) Dependent con
(we) have visited Paris with Paolo that us.DAT made as guide Vimos París con Pablo que nos 2/3 -- -- -- ok
c. Mi piace la foto di Maria che corre nei campi. (PP within a DP) monstraba los monumentos
me pleases the picture of Maria that runs in-the fields (12c) PP in a DP
La foto de María que hace galletas me * ok * * *
4. 'Root' expressions: gustó
(13) a. Aldo che picchia sua moglie? Non ci credo! (exclamations) (13a) Root constructions
Aldo that beats his wife? Not it (I) believe ¿Alfonso que golpea a su mujer? No me * -- -- -- *
b. E. Delacroix, La Libertà che guida il popolo. (titles) lo puedo creer!
Liberty leading the people Table 1: The distribution of PRs in Spanish, Catalan and European Portuguese

3 4
Jan Casalicchio, The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance Seminars del CLT – 14 octubre 2016

3.2 Problems of the cross-linguistic comparison, and some open questions But: PRs on the object are attested also in Spanish (but judged ungrammatical in Rafel 2000) and
French, where the complementiser cannot head this type of clauses:
1. The terminological problem: PRs should be kept distinct from: (20) a. Lo vi que lo arrestaban (Spanish; Campos 1994: 235)
a. Adverbial clauses headed by che/que in Italian (and Catalan?): b. Con Josè que lo llaman sus amigos a toda hora, nunca puedo estudiar en casa
(Ibid. 236)
(14) a. L'ho visto che pioveva (Italian) (21) Je l'ai vue qu'on la portait encore en bras (French; A. Antoine 1822)
him (I) saw that rained I her have seen that on her brought still in arm
b. M’he llevat que em feia mal el cap (Catalan; M.L. Hernánz, p.c.)

b. Clefts (go against all properties listed in §2.1): 3. Cross-linguistic differences:

(15) Es María que está mal (no Ana) (Spanish) a. in Rumanian, there is a construction similar to PRs, which is though analysed as different:

c. Catalan "Pseudo-relatives" of the traditional grammars: (22) Am auzit-o că spunea prostii... (Suñer 1984: 269)
(I) have hear-him that talked non-sense
(16) Tens una mare que li hauries de fer un monument (Catalan; Solà 2002: 2525)
b. in Spanish (and Rumanian?) PRs are not islands (≠ Italian, French):
2. The delimitations of PRs: What do we mean exactly by PR? When can we speak of a PR? (23) ¿Con quién lo ves que anda t en la escuela? (Suñer 1984: 261)

a. Spanish PRs in the literature:

Suñer (1978, 1984): cases of controlled pro: perception verbs
hay
dejar (+ subj.)
Brucart (1999): predicative relative clauses: perception verbs
hay
other verbs like querer, buscar (+ subj.)
absolute construction with con
predicative of the subject
(and some more)
Main criterion: the cliticisation of the antecedent. But some problems:
• in some cases the verb must be in the subjunctive:
(17) a. Las dejó que terminaran el helado (Spanish; Suñer 1984: 255)
c. in French, PRs are only possible when the antecedent is third person (but better with overt
pronoun?):
(24) ?/*Pierre me voit qui parle à Jean (Guasti 1988: 45)
Pierre me sees that (I) speak to Jean
d. in (European) Portuguese, PRs are very marginal:
(25) ??Vi o Luis que saía de casa (Raposo 1989: 304)
(I) saw the Luis that went-out from home
4. The three analyses proposed for PRs
4.1 Syntactic differences between the three structures

• with hay, also "PRs" with stative verbs, without che and on the object are considered: Three lines of analysis:
(18) Hay personas a quienes es mejor no tratar (Brucart 1999: 430) 1. PRs are CPs (Radford 1975 and 1977, Guasti 1988, 1992 and 1993, Campos 1994, (26));

b. PRs of the object, with clitic resumption 2. PRs are Complex NPs/DPs (Graffi 1980, Burzio 1986, Di Lorenzo 2010, Cecchetto-Donati
2011, (27));
(19) a. ?Ho visto Gianni che suo padre lo picchiava (Italian; Graffi 1980: 133)
(I) have seen Gianni that his father beat him 3. The antecedent and the PR form two separate constituents (Kayne 1975, Suñer 1978 and 1984,
b. L'ho visto che lo picchiavano a sangue (28)):
him (I) have seen that him (they) beat to blood
(26) PR is a CP-like constituent: Ho visto [CP Mario che correva]]]
Possible explanation: Examples like (19) are not PRs, but examples of adverbial sentences
introduced by che, like in (14). (27) PR is a complex DP: Ho visto [DP [DP Marioi] [CP PROi [che correva]]]
(28) Two-constituent structure: Ho [VP [V' visto Marioi] [CP PROi [che correva]]]
5 6
Jan Casalicchio, The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance Seminars del CLT – 14 octubre 2016

b) sorprendere ('to catch'): only two constituents

Main arguments for each of the three structures:
(33) a. *Ciòi che ho sorpreso è [Maria che fumava]i (*PR = CP)
1. A CP constituent (26): what that (I) have caught is Maria that smoked
b. *Ho sorpreso [Paolo] e [Maria che fumava] (*PR = DP)
(29) a. Ho visto [Maria che ballava]i, il chei mi ha stupito. (neuter resumption)
(I) have caught [Paolo] and [Maria that smoked]
(I) have seen [Maria that danced], the what me has surprised
c. L'ho sorpresa che fumava (PR = 2 cons.)
b. [I minatori che protestano] è un triste spettacolo. (copular verb is singular)
her (I) have caught that smoked
[the miners that protest] is a sad spectacle
c. Con il fatto che Maria sta male, non posso uscire. (insertion of il fatto)
c) 'absolute construction': only one CP constituent
with the fact that Maria is bad, not (I) can go-out
(34) a. Con il fatto che Maria sta male, non posso uscire stasera (PR = CP)
2. A complex DP (27): with the fact that Maria is not-well, not (I) can go-out this-evening
b. #Con Maria, non posso uscire stasera (*PR = DP)
(30) a. Ho visto [una capra] e [Maria che la inseguiva] (coordination with a simple DP)
with Maria, not (I) can go-out this-evening
(I) have seen [a goat] and [Maria that it chased] ??
c. Con Maria sul divano che sta male, non posso uscire stasera (??PR = 2 cons.)
b. [Gigi e Sofia che imitano i tuoi] mi fanno ridere (verb agrees with the subject)
with Maria on-the couch that is not-well, not (I) can go-out this-evening
[Gigi and Sofia that mimick your parents] me make laugh
c. Laurai che fuma in casa, non lai sopporto! (resumption with personal pron.)
Laura that smokes at home, not her (I) stand
3.2 Semantic differences
3. Two constituents (28):
Even semantically, there are good arguments for this articulated analysis: PRs usually have a CP-
(31) a. L'ho vista che giocava. (cliticisation) like structure in those contexts that permit full CPs to appear:
Her (I) have seen that played
b. Maria è stata vista che giocava. (long DP-movement) (35) a. Ecco [CP che arriva Gianni]
Maria is been seen that played ecco [that arrives Gianni]
c. Ho visto Maria [in cortile] che giocava (insertion of elements) b. Ecco [CP Gianni che arriva]
(I) have seen Maria [in courtyard] that played ecco [Gianni that arrives]
(36) a. Immagino [CP che sarai stanco]
Most analyses consider only perceptive constructions: there are good arguments for each of (I) imagine [that (you) will-be tired]
the three structures. b. Immagina [CP Gianni che si addormenta sul divano]
Few scholars have considered also other contexts (e.g. Guasti 1992 and Cecchetto-Donati (I) imagine [Gianni that falls-asleep on-the couch]
2011 for the verbs of the sorprendere-class, Burzio 1986 for the absolute construction);
Cinque (1992) is the only one which deals systematically with most possible contexts. PRs have a DP-like structure in contexts that select a DP:
In these contexts, the results are often clearer (but not coherent): (37) a. La foto di [DP Maria] mi fa ridere
a) sopportare ('to stand'): only one constituent the picture of Maria me makes laugh
b. La foto di [DP Maria che imita il professore] mi fa ridere
(32) a. Non sopporto [Luca che fuma in casa]i, il chei dà fastidio anche a te (PR = CP) the picture of Maria that mimicks the teacher me makes laugh
not (I) stand [Luca that smokes at home], what annoys also to you
(38) a. Ho incontrato [DP Luca]
b. Laurai che fuma in casa, non lai sopporto proprio (PR = DP)
(I) have met Luca
Laura that smokes at home, not her (I) stand really
b. Ho incontrato [DP Luca che andava a fare la spesa]
c. *Non lo sopporto che fuma in casa (*PR = 2 cons.)
(I) have met Luca that went to make the shopping
not him (I) stand that smokes at home

7 8
Jan Casalicchio, The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance Seminars del CLT – 14 octubre 2016

5. A new unified analysis

Clear piece of evidence: argumental PPs. When the verb can also select simple DPs, PRs can be
DP-like; if it selects also a CP, the PR can be CP-like: 5.1 PRs as Small Clauses

(39) a. Pensare + CP / a + DP ("Penso che..."; "Penso a Mario") PRs are Small Clauses (Cinque 1992, Rafel's 2000 'Complex Small Clauses'):
b. Sto pensando a [CP/DP Filippo che viene licenziato]
(I) am thinking [about Filippo that gets fired] 1. PRs occur in all and only those contexts in which a Small Clause is possible (modulo aspectual
compatibilities):3
(40) a. Parlare + *CP / con + DP ("*Parlo che..."; "Parlo con Fabio")
malata
b. Sto parlando con [DP/*CP Maria che piange]
ill .
(I) am speaking [with Maria that cries]
in lacrime
Note that there does not exist the pattern pensare + a + CP: the CP-Small Clause (39) is in tears
possible for semantic reasons. If there were a syntactic motivation, (41) should be grammatical: (45) Con Lucia inseguita dalla polizia siamo in gravi difficoltà
With Lucia chased by-the police we-are in big difficulties
(41) *Penso [CP Filippo che viene licenziato]
come avvocato
(I) think [Filippo that gets fired]
as lawyer
che sta male
Two-constituent structure: in some cases PRs are clearly adjuncts:
that is ill (Casalicchio 2015)
(42) a. Ho visto Maria (che correva)
(I) have seen Maria (that run) 2. PRs can be coordinated with other types of SC:
b. Mangiò la pizza (che stava fumando)
(he) ate the pizza (that was smoking) (46) a. Ho visto [SC Maria felice] e [Gianni che rideva]
(I) have seen [Maria happy] and [Gianni that laughed]
With other verbs, they seem to be arguments of the verb: b. Ho visto Gianni [SC agitato] e [che fumava come un turco]
(43) a. Ho sorpreso Claudio che rubava i soldi vs. Ho sorpreso Claudio (I) have seen Gianni [worried] and [that smoked like a Turkish]
(I) have caught Claudio that stole the money (I) have surprised Claudio 3. PRs are not syntactically independent:
b. Non mi vedo Maria *(che balla il tango)
not me (I) see (= imagine) Maria (that dances the tango) (47) *Maria che mangia
Maria that eats

(44) I follow Belletti's (2008) analysis of cleft clauses and suggest that a SC is any constituent
Structures of PRs
where there is a Subject-Predicate configuration: in formal terms, there is an EPP feature:
(48) [SC [[EPP] Subject] [Predicate]]
One constituent Two constituents
[Maria che balla] [Maria] [che balla] (49) [TP Ce … … [ FocP [ . [vP être [CP…[EPP Jean [FinP qui [a parlé]]]]]]]]
(Belletti 2008: 9)

DP – Small Clause CP – Small Clause Argumental PR Adjunct PR In Belletti's proposal, the subject of SCs may either be base generated in the subject position or
[DPAnna che balla] [CPAnna che balla] [Maria] [Arg.che balla] [Maria] [Adj.che balla] moved there from inside the Predicate.

9 10
Jan Casalicchio, The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance Seminars del CLT – 14 octubre 2016

5.2 The internal structure of PRs Further piece of evidence: complex wh-exclamatives target ForceP (Benincà 2001), too, and are
excluded from PRs:
My aim: to combine a unified analysis à la Rafel with Cinque's observation that there are clear (55) Il presidente che guarda la partita
arguments for three different structures. the president that looks the game
In this section I focus on the CP-Small Clause; I will turn to the other constructions in the next
sections. (56) a. *Che partita (che) il presidente che guarda! (*Excl > PR)
what game (that) the president that looks
b. *Il presidente (che) che partita che guarda (*PR > Excl)
Assumption: split CP layer with a complex internal structure (Benincà-Poletto (2004):4
the president (that) what game that looks
(50) Hanging Topic (HT) > ForceP > TopP > FocusP > FinP > TP
The complete structure of PRs is thus the following:5
Tests show that:
(57) [SC=ForceP[+EPP] Mariai che [TopP [FocP [FinP [TP proi canta [VP proi canta]]]]]]
(i) no material can intervene between the antecedent and the complementiser;
(ii) The antecedent of a PR is higher than all topicalised elements, while it is lower than Hanging The position of the antecedent in Spec,ForceP is due to the EPP-feature associated to the SC
Topics; foci are generally excluded in PRs: (cf. supra) and involves only the subject for locality reasons.
The merge position of the subject is criterial (Rizzi-Shlonsky 2007: the DP is frozen in place if
a) HT > PR it is moved to a criterial position, i.e. to a position dedicated to some scope-discourse
(51) a. Maria, Luca che invita quella cretina non è una buona idea. (HT > PR) interpretive property):
animals, Luca and Maria that themselves.DAT buy a dog not is a good idea
(58) *Chii non sopporti chii che fuma in casa?
b. *Luca (Maria) che (Maria) invita quella cretina non è una buona idea.. (*PR > HT)
who not (you) stand who that smokes at home
Luca and Maria, animals, that themselves.DAT buy a dog not is a good ides

b) PR > Top Moreover, I propose that PRs in Italian are full phases: this explains why they are islands, i.e.
(52) a. Aldo che a Roma ci porta pure Mario? Non ci credo! (PR > Top) nothing can be extracted from within the PR:
Aldo that to Rome there takes also Mario? not to-it (I) believe (59) *Cosa hai visto Maria che mangiava cosa?
b. *(A Roma) Aldo (a Roma) che ci porta pure Mario? Non ci credo! (*Top > PR) what (you) have seen Maria that ate what
(to Rome) Aldo (to Rome) that there takes also Mario? not to-it (I) believe

c) *PR + Foc
(53) a. *Giulia e Maria che LAURA imitano è divertente (*PR > Foc) 4.3 The vexata quaestio: does the subject move or is it directly merged in CP?
Giulia and Maria that LAURA mimick is funny
b. *(LAURA,) Giulia e Maria (LAURA) che imitano è divertente (*Foc > PR) 1. If there were movement, a topicalised element or a pragmatic subject should also be able to be
(LAURA,) Giulia and Maria (LAURA) that mimick is funny the antecedent (see e.g. Rizzi 1995 on quirky subjects):
(60) A Marco stanno mancando sempre di più i suoi amici
The position of the antecedent is between Hanging Topics and Topics (54), i.e. in ForceP: to Marco is missing always more the his friends
(54) HT > Maria che > Top > Foc (61) *Con (a) Marco che stanno mancando sempre di più i suoi amici...
with (to) Marco that are missing always more the his friends

3
On the contrary, the traditional claim that the contexts admitting PRs have always got a perceptual or presentative
values (e.g. Strudsholm (1998) is not confirmed by the data.
4
Note that the structure in (50) is a simplified version, since Benincà-Poletto (as well as other scholars) argue for a
more detailed Left Periphery, especially in the Topic and Focus subfield. The simplified version that I adopt here
suffices for my purposes. 5
Consider that (57) is compatible with the observation that in Italian complementizers are usually in ForceP (cf. Rizzi
1997, Ledgeway 2012).

11 12
Jan Casalicchio, The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance Seminars del CLT – 14 octubre 2016

2. Reconstruction effects: Belletti&Rizzi (1988) show that reconstruction effects can be used to
disentangle raising from control structures, if psych verbs are used (see also Grillo&Moulton 5.4.2 The Complex DP
2015): - Typical cases:
(62) a. I proprii figli sembrano preoccupare Marcoi (66) La foto di Maria che cucina i biscotti è bellissima (modifier of an embedded DP)
the own children seem worry Marco
the picture of Maria that cooks the cookies is very-beautiful
b. *I proprii figli credono di PRO preoccupare Marcoi (Casalicchio in press: 37f.)
the own children believe to PRO worry Marco
- Preliminary observations:
If we adapt this test to PRs, we yield ungrammatical results: As claimed in Cinque (1992: 9), here PRs are (DP-internal) modifiers and not reduced relative
(63) *Vedere i proprii figli che preoccupano Marcoi mi dispiace clauses. They have to be analysed as control structures in order to explain:
see the own children that worry Marco me displeases
1. The subject-object asymmetry (the antecedent is always coindexed with the subject of the PR);
PRs are not raising structures 2. Why PRs are selected only by certain verbs: PRs have to meet the selectional requirements of
the verb when they have a Complex-DP structure:
(67) a. *Chiamo Maria che canta
5.4 Four embedding contexts for PRs (I) call Maria that dances
b. Chiamo Maria, la quale canta
Recall § 3.1: PRs enter three possible structures: (I) call Maria, which dances
(26) PR is a CP-like constituent: Ho visto [CP Mario che correva]]]
• Proposed analysis:
(27) PR is a complex DP: Ho visto [DP [DP Marioi] [CP PROi [che
correva]]] The PR is inserted in a functional projection within the DP:
(28) Two-constituent structure: Ho [VP [V' visto Marioi] [CP PROi [che correva]]] (68) La foto di [DP Mariai [FP=PR PROi che stira] [NP Maria]]

The structure that I have proposed in (57) occurs in any type of PR. What changes, are the way
and the locus in which this structure is embedded.
(69) [DP Mariai [FP=ForceP PROi che [TopP[FocP[FinP [TP proi balla [vP proi balla] [NP Mariai]]

5.4.1 The CP-Small Clause

- Typical contexts: The internal structure of the PR is the same as in CP-Small Clauses. The only difference is that
we have a PRO instead of a lexical subject DP:6
(64) a. Gianni che picchia sua moglie? Non ci credo! (exclamative 'root' sentences)
Gianni that beats his wife? not to-it (I) believe (70) a. ?Balli, Gianni e Maria che ballano il tango sono uno spettacolo (HT > PRs)
b. Gianni e Mario che ballano il tango è uno spettacolo (copular sentence without agr.) dances, Gianni and Maria that dance the tango are a spectacle
Gianni and Mario that dance the tango is a spectacle b. ?La foto di Maria che i biscotti se li mangia con gusto non l'avevo mai vista (PR > Top)
the picture of Maria that the cookies self them eats with pleasure not it (I) had never seen
When the PR is a CP-Small Clause, it corresponds exactly to the structure (57) and is merged as a c. *La foto di Maria che I BISCOTTI mangia non l'avevo mai vista (*PR+Foc)
whole in the required projection: the picture of Maria the THE COOKIES eats not it (I) had never seen

(65) Ho visto [ForceP Mariai che [TopP[FocP[FinP[TP proi mangiava [VP Mariai mangiava la mela]]]]]]

6
Note that in this structure it is impossible to test the position of PRO, but we can observe the position of the
complementizer che: on this basis I assume that the PRO is in the Spec of the same projection as che, viz. ForceP.
13 14
Jan Casalicchio, The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance Seminars del CLT – 14 octubre 2016

(75) a. [VP Maria mangia [LocP la pizzai [Loc' Loc° [PROi che fuma]]]]
5.4.3 Two-constituents structures b. [TP Giannii lasciò la stanza [VP [LocP Giannii Loc° [PROi che piangeva]] lasciò la stanza]]

- Typical cases: If the PR is an argument on its own, there is a 'Larsonian' structure, where the structure is projected
(71) a. Ho sorpreso Maria che frugava nella tua borsetta. (sorprendere-type verbs) not by an abstract Loc°, but by the verb itself (16 c):
(I) have caught Maria that rummaged in-the your handbag (76) [vP Giulio sorprende [VP Mariai [V' sorprende [PROi che ruba]]]]
b. Maria è in giardino che studia (locative sentences)
Maria is in garden that studies
It is possible to combine Cinque's claim that PRs have more than one structure with a single
c. C'è il gatto che ha fame (presentational c'è)
analysis, according to which PRs are always CP Small-Clauses. The difference depends thus
c'è the cat that has hunger
not on the internal structure of the PR, but on the structure which they are embedded in.
d. Anna lasciò la stanza che piangeva (free adjuncts)
Anna left the room that cried

6. A review of the subject-object asymmetry

- Preliminary observations:
The PR here has again a control structure, as the subject-object asymmetry attests. I propose that the Graffi (1980) notes that there are indeed instances of PRs where the antecedent is coindexed with
PR is part of an LocP with an abstract head:7 an object:9
(72) (77) a. ?
Ho visto Giovanni che suo padre lo picchiava (Graffi 1980)
(I) have seen Giovanni that his father him beat
LocP
b. Ieri in TV ho visto Maria che *(le) davano un premio
yesterday on tv (I) have seen Maria that *(her.DAT) pro give a reward
Spec Loc' (78) Voilà ta soeur qu'on porte dans son lit (French; Sandfeld 1909: 119)
DP
voilà your sister that on carries in her bed
Loc° Comp (79) Con María que le duele el estómago, no podremos ir de paseo (Sp.; Campos 1994: 225)
Ps-rel. with M. that her.DAT hurts the stomach, not (we) will-can go for a walk

(73) [LocP Mariai [Loc° [ForceP PROi che [TopP [FocP [FinP [TP [TP proi canta [VP proi canta]]]]]
In (72)/(73), the antecedent can move from its position into the matrix clause, e.g. when it is
cliticised or when passivisation occurs. The internal structure of the PR is the same as in the other
contexts:
(74) a. *Ho sorpreso Andrea che, (la) cioccolata, si mangiava di nascosto la Lindt (*PR > HT)
(I) have caught Andrea that, (the) chocolate, self ate on the sly the Lindt
b. Ho sorpreso Andrea che la cioccolata se la stava mangiando di nascosto
(I) have caught Andrea that the chocolate self it was eating on the sly
c. Ho sorpreso Andrea che LA CIOCCOLATA si mangiava di nascosto
(I) have caught Andrea that THE CHOCOLATE self ate on the sly
In Italian and Spanish, the coindexation with the object requires a clitic resumptive pronoun,
in French it does not.
(77)-(79) are true PRs and not relative or adverbial clauses:
1. They are subject to the same restrictions as the other PRs; cf. the ungrammaticality of relative
pronouns like il quale and the temporal coreference:
(PR > Top) (80) *Ho visto Giovanni il quale suo padre (lo) picchiava
(I) have seen Giovanni which his father (him) beat
(*PR+Foc) (81) *Ho visto Giovanni che suo padre lo picchierà/aveva picchiato/picchiò
(I) have seen Giovanni that his father him will-beat/had beaten/ beat

When the PR is an adjunct, the whole XP occurs in the complement position if the antecedent is an 2. Moreover, adverbial clauses headed by che exist in Italian, but don't in French and Spanish.
object (75)a, in Spec,vP if the antecedent is the subject of the matrix clause (75)b:8
(i) Mariai mangiò la pizzaj [PROi in piedi] e [PROi/*j che fumava]
7
This structure is reminiscent of Cinque's (2008) analysis of non-integrated non-restrictive relative clauses. The author Maria ate the pizza [PRO on foot] and [PRO that smoked]
proposes that this structure can be used for Romance Hanging Topics, too. If the PR were freely adjoined to VP, the ungrammaticality of a disjunct reading would remain unexplained.
8
Further evidence for a difference between PRs that are adjuncts of the object and of the subject (75)a-b comes from
examples like (i):

15 16
Jan Casalicchio, The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance Seminars del CLT – 14 octubre 2016

(82) a. Ho visto Gianni che l'autobus era già partito • The antecedent of PRs moves to Spec,ForceP from vP to check the EPP-feature, which is
b. J'ai vu Jean que l'autobus était déjà parti seen as the salient property of Small Clauses;
c. *He visto a Juan que el autobús ya se marchaba (Rafel 2000: 110) • The freely coindexed PRs are grammatical in several Romance languages, although they are
(I) have seen (to) Gianni that the bus had already left more restricted and often marginal. They have a similar structure as the other PRs, but differ
in the position of the antecedent, which is in TopP.
in PRs with free coindexation the antecedent occurs in a different position: the antecedent is
higher than TopPs, but is compatible with foci:
(83) a. Ho visto Maria (*un premio) che (?un premio) glielo davano proprio ieri. (PR > TopP) 8. Literature
(I) have seen Maria (*a reward) that (?a reward) her.DAT-it pro gave exactly yesterday Belletti, Adriana (2008). 'The CP of clefts', Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 33, 191-204;
b. Ho visto Maria che CON IL BASTONE la rincorrevano (non con la scopa) (PR > Foc) Benincà, Paola - Poletto, Cecilia (2004). 'Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers', in Rizzi,
(I) have seen Maria that WITH THE STICK her pro chased (not with the broom) Luigi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. Oxford - New York: Oxford University Press, 52-75
Benincà, Paola (2001). 'The Position of Topic and Focus in the Left Periphery', in G. Cinque - G.
This points to the fact that there is no operator movement. I suggest therefore that the antecedent is Salvi (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam:
in Spec,TopP (84): Elsevier North Holland, 39-64
Brucart, José M. (1999). 'La estructura del sintagma nominal: las oraciones de relativo', in I. Bosque
(84) Ho visto [TopP Maria che [FocP[FinP[TP proarb lai insultavano [VP pro insultavano la]]]]] - V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa, 395-522.
Burzio, Luigi (1986). Italian Syntax. A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Further evidence for (84): subject PRs can have a quantifier as antecedent, object PRs cannot: Campos, Héctor (1994). 'Suedo-elevación y seudo-relativas en español' in: V. Demonte (ed.),
Gramática del español. México: El Colegio de México, 201-236.
(85) a. Oggi in treno ho visto qualcuno che insultava il controllore (subject PR) Casalicchio, Jan (in corso di pubblicazione/b). 'La costruzione 'con + DP + pseudorelativa': proposta
today in train (I) have seen somebody that insulted the guard per una duplice interpretazione' in: Atti del XLVI Congresso Internazionale della Società di
b. *Oggi in treno ho visto qualcuno che (lo) insultavano (object PR) Linguistica Italiana (Siena, 27-29 settembre 2012).
today in train (I) have seen somebady that (him) pro insulted Casalicchio, Jan (2013). Pseudorelative, gerundi e infiniti nelle varietà romanze. Affinità (solo)
superficiali e corrispondenze strutturali. München: Lincom Europa.
Notice that in this case we are dealing only with CP-Small Clauses, since they are the only ones Cecchetto, Carlo & Donati, Caterina (2011). 'Relabeling Heads. A Unified Account for
Relativization Structures' Linguistic Inquiry 42:4, 519-560.
which are not control structures:
Cinque, Guglielmo (1992). ‘The Pseudo-Relative and Acc-ing Constructions after Verbs of
(86) #L'ho sorpreso che lo chiamavano al telefono (2 constituents) Perception, University of Venice –Working Papers in Linguistics, Venezia.
him (I) have caught that him pro called at-the telephon Cinque, Guglielmo (2008). 'Two types of non-restrictive relatives', in Empiricali Issues in Syntax
and Semantics 7, 99-137;
(87) *Mariai che la insultavano, non lai ho vista (Complex DP) Di Lorenzo, Giorgia (2009/2010). La subordinata come oggetto complesso. La causativa nelle
Maria that her pro insulted, not her (I) have seen lingue scandinave (attraverso la pseudorelativa). PhD-thesis, Università di Roma Tre.
Graffi, Giorgio (1980). 'Su alcune costruzioni "pseudorelative" ' Rivista di Grammatica Generativa
Open question: 5, 117-139.
Guasti, Maria Teresa (1988). ‘La pseudorelative et les phenomenes d’accord’, Rivista di
• Is the EPP-feature activated here, too? Grammatica Generativa 13, 35-80;
Guasti, Maria Teresa (1992). 'Pseudorelatives and Prepositional Infinitives. A Unified Account'
7. Conclusions Geneva Generative Papers 1, 53-65.
Guasti, Maria Teresa (1993). Causative and Perception Verbs. Torino: Rosenberg&Sellier.
In this paper I have shown that: Herczeg, Giulio (1959). 'Sintassi delle proposizioni subordinate nella lingua italiana' Acta
Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 9, 261-333.
• In order to get a whole picture of PRs, it is necessary to consider all the contexts that allow Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:69-96.
the use of PRs; Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Blackwell, Oxford.
• All PRs have the same structure, i.e. they are CP-Small Clauses. The differences in the Hornstein, Norbert & David Lightfoot (1987). 'Predication and PRO'. Language 63, 23-52.
syntactic tests depend only on the syntactic context in which they are embedded; Kayne, Richard S. (1975). French Syntax. The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
9
Rafel (2000: 148 ff.) states that many Spanish speakers do not accept sentences like (79). In Italian, sentences are
Kiss, Katalin É. (1987). Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel.
better when the subject of the PR is a generic pro, instead of a lexical DP, probably for locality reasons; a similar Winkler, Susanne (1997). Focus and Secondary Predication. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter.
observation holds for Spanish, where it is possible to have a lexical subject in these cases, but it has to be postverbal. Landau, Idan (2003). 'Movement Out of Control' Linguistic Inquiry 34:3, 471-498.
17 18
Jan Casalicchio, The Pseudo-relative construction in Romance

Landau, Idan (2004). 'The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control' Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 22, 811-877.
Landau, Idan (2006). 'Severing the Distribution of PRO from Case' Syntax 9:2, 153-170.
Ledgeway, Adam (2012). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford:
Oxford University Press;
Radford, Andrew (1975). ‘Pseudo-Relatives and the Unity of Subject Raising’, Archivum
Linguisticum 6, 32-64;
Radford, Andrew (1977). Italian Syntax. Transformational and Relational Grammar, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press;
Rafel, Joan (2000). Complex Small Clauses. PhD-dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona;
Raposo, Eduardo (1989). 'Prepositional Infinitival Constructions in European Portuguese' in: O.
Jaeggli, K.J. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 277-305.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997). 'The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery'. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements
of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur (2007). ‘Strategies of Subject Extraction’ in: H.M. Gärtner, U.
Sauerland (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from
Syntax-Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 115-160;
Sandfeld, Kristian (1936). Syntaxe du français contemporain, vol. II: Les propositions
subordonnées. Paris: Droz.
Scarano, Antonietta (2002): Frasi relative e pseudo-relative in italiano. Sintassi, semantica e
articolazione dell’informazione. Roma: Bulzoni
Strudsholm, Erling (1998). Relative situazionali in italiano moderno. Una reinterpretazione della
cosiddetta pseudorelativa sulla base di un approccio combinato, formale e funzionale. Münster-
Hamburg-London: LIT;
Suñer, Margarita (1978). 'Perception verb complements in Spanish: same or different?' Canadian
Journal of Linguistics 23, 107-127.
Suñer, Margarita (1984). 'Controlled pro' in: Ph. Baldi (ed.), Papers from the XIIth Linguistic
Symposium of Romance Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 253-273.

19