Remnant Movement and Relative Clauses in Tagalog 1 ...faculty.washington.edu/aldr/pdf/IHRC_rvd.pdf2 (2) a. Bili ng babae ang isda. buy ERG woman ABS fish ‘The

1

Remnant Movement and Relative Clauses in Tagalog

1. Introduction

Tagalog has what appear to be head-initial, head-final, and head-internal relative clauses. In the

head-initial relative in (1a), the head NP precedes the modifying clause. A linker ng (pronounced

as the velar nasal), intervenes between the head nominal and the clause. In the head-final relative

(HFRC) in (1b), the modifying clause precedes the head NP. The linker appears between the

clause and the head NP. In the head-internal relative (HIRC) in (1c), the head NP surfaces

between the verb and the ergative subject in a position which appears to be internal to the clause.

The linker is situated between the verb and the head NP.

(1) a. libro=ng b<in>ili ng babae (Head-initial)

book=LK <PRV>buy ERG woman

‘book which the woman bought’

b. b<in>ili ng babae=ng libro (HFRC)

<PRV>buy ERG woman=LK book


c. b<in>ili=ng libro ng babae (HIRC)

<PRV>buy=LK book ERG woman


This paper focuses on HFRCs and HIRCs. Contrary to appearances, I propose that both HFRCs

and HIRCs are externally headed and involve very similar derivations. The main difference

between them is the size of the relative clause. For HFRCs, this is a full CP. But for HIRCs, I

propose that the embedded clause is reduced and consists of only a vP. Although I argue in this

paper that Tagalog does not have true internally headed relative clauses, I continue to use the

label “HIRC” for mnemonic purposes.

The proposal that Tagalog does not have true internally headed relative clauses departs from

Aldridge’s (2004a) proposal that both the verb and head NP remain internal to the clause in

Tagalog HIRCs. Section 3 sketches Aldridge’s (2003, 2004a) proposals for Tagalog relative

clauses and identifies problems in the (2004a) analysis of HIRCs. Section 4 discusses structural

parallels between HFRCs and HIRCs in the nominal domain, which suggest that the two types of

relative clause involve similar derivations. Section 5 presents the revised proposal for HIRCs,

which is parallel to HFRCs in all respects except that the embedded clause is a vP instead of a

CP.

2. Tagalog Basics

Some basic characteristics of Tagalog morphosyntax need to be clarified in order to discuss

relative clause structure. First, Tagalog is an ergative language. Subjects in transitive clauses are

marked with ergative case, which is ng (pronounced [naŋ]) for common nouns and ni for proper

names. Morphologically, this case is genitive, being the same case assigned to possessors within

DPs.

2

(2) a. B<in>ili ng babae ang isda.

<TR.PRV>buy ERG woman ABS fish

‘The woman bought the fish.’

b. isda ng babae

fish GEN woman

‘(the) woman’s fish’

This fact is unsurprising, given that Austronesian transitive clauses hail diachronically from

clausal nominalizations (Starosta et al. 1981, 1982; Ross 2009, and others). Such a syncretism

between ergative and genitive case is also found in other ergative languages which have been

suggested to have a either a synchronic or diachronic connection with nominalization,

specifically Inuit (Johns 1992) Mayan (Bricker 1981), and Cariban (Gildea 1998) languages.

Objects in transitive clauses and subjects in intransitive clauses take absolutive case, which is

ang for common nouns and si for proper names. Basic word order in Tagalog is VSO. In a

transitive clause, the ergative subject immediately follows the verb, and the absolutive object

appears after the subject. Tagalog verbs are morphologically marked for transitivity. For example,

transitive verbs in perfective and progressive aspects are inflected with the infix <in>.

Applicative affixes can also be added to a transitive verb stem. One such applicative is the prefix

i-, which in (3b) results in a benefactive argument being licensed as the absolutive.




b. I-b<in>ili ng babae ng isda ang lalaki.

APPL-<TR.PRV>buy ERG woman GEN fish ABS man

‘The woman bought the man a fish.’

Perfective, progressive, or infinitive intransitive verbs generally take the <um> infix1. (4a) shows

a simple intransitive clause. (4b) is an antipassive, which is a special type of intransitive clause.

Antipassives are semantically transitive in that they contain two nominal arguments, both an

external and an internal argument. But they are syntactically intransitive in that absolutive case

appears on the external argument, i.e. the subject, rather than on an internal argument. The direct

object in an antipassive is not assigned absolutive case but rather has some type of inherent case.

In Tagalog this case is genitive.

(4) a. T<um>awa ang babae.

<INTR.PRV>laugh ABS woman

‘The woman laughed.’

b. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda.

<TR.PRV>buy ABS woman GEN fish


1 Another common intransitive marker in Tagalog is the prefix mag-. Both <um> and mag- can appear on

antipassive verbs. But when these affixes appear on simple intransitive verbs, <um> can be used with both

unaccusatives and unergatives, while mag- is limited to unergatives. As a historical side note, mag- derives

diachronically from the combination of <um> and the prefix pag- (Wolff 1973). Travis (2000) analyzes pag- as

causative, which suggests an explanation for the restriction to agentive predicates.

3

Tagalog also exhibits syntactic ergativity in the form of the absolutive restriction on A’-

extraction, according to which only absolutive DPs are eligible to undergo A’-movement

operations like relative clause formation. For example, the direct object absolutive can be

relativized in a transitive clause in (5a), but the ergative subject cannot, as in (5b). Aldridge

(2004b, 2008), Campana (1992), Dixon (1994), Manning (1996), and others identify this

restriction as the hallmark characteristic of syntactic ergativity.

(5) a. isda=ng b<in>ili ng babae

fish=LK <TR.PRV>buy ERG woman

‘fish that the woman bought’

b. *babae=ng b<in>ili ang isda

woman=ng <TR.PRV>buy ABS fish

‘woman who bought the fish’

This does not mean, however, that external arguments can never undergo A’-movement. The

external argument can be extracted from an antipassive, as shown in (6a), since the external

argument has absolutive status in this clause type. The genitive object, on the other hand, is not

eligible to undergo movement in an antipassive, as shown in (6b).

(6) a. babae=ng b<um>ili ng isda

woman=LK <INTR.PRV>buy GEN fish

‘woman who bought a/the fish’

b. *isda=ng b<um>ili ang babae

fish=LK <INTR.PRV>buy ABS woman

‘fish that the woman bought’

Aldridge (2004, 2008, 2012a) accounts for the preceding case and dislocation facts by analyzing

Tagalog as a “v-type” ergative language, in which the locus of the syntactic derivation is feature

bundles on v. A transitive v has a full complement of unvalued ɸ and EPP features. This accounts

for licensing of the ergative and absolutive DPs, as well as the extractability of an absolutive

object. In a transitive clause like (7a), v assigns inherent2 genitive case to the external argument

in its specifier and values structural (absolutive) case on the object. In addition, transitive v

carries an EPP (specifically a [uD]) feature, which draws the absolutive object into its outer

specifier. This places the absolutive in the highest specifier within the vP phase edge, making it

eligible to undergo further movement without violating the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC)

of Chomsky (2000, 2001, and subsequent works), as shown in (5). VSO basic word order is the

consequence of head movement of the verb from vP to T. Note further that absolutive objects in

transitive clauses receive a specific, typically definite interpretation. This is accounted for on

Diesing’s (1992) Mapping Hypothesis, which affords a presuppositional interpretation to objects

which have moved out of VP.

2 See also Mahajan (1989), Woolford (1997, 2006), and Legate (2002, 2008) that ergative case is inherent rather

than structural.

4




b. CP

C[uD] TP

V+v+T vP

DP[ABS] v’

DP[ERG] v’

<V+v[uɸ, uD]> VP

<V> <DP[ABS]>

Given that basic word order in Tagalog is VSO, movement to the edge of vP must generally be

‘covert’. I assume that movement takes place in the syntax, and the higher copy is interpreted at

LF, while the lower copy is the one pronounced at PF. See Rackowski (2002) and Rackowski &

Richards (2005) for other analyses of Tagalog syntax which assume covert movement of

absolutive objects. However, when there is additional motivation for movement, as in

relativization, then movement to the phase edge becomes overt, i.e. the absolutive will be spelled

out in the final landing site.

In contrast to transitive clauses, in which an internal argument has absolutive status, the

subject is the absolutive in intransitive clauses. I follow Aldridge’s (2004b, 2008) proposal that v

does not have an EPP feature in intransitive (and antipassive) clauses. Since it is intransitive, this

v also lacks the ability to value absolutive case, so the object is dependent on the lexical verb for

inherent case, which is genitive. The external argument values absolutive case with T.3 Since the

genitive object does not move to the vP phase edge, it also cannot undergo Agree relations with

material external to vP without violating the PIC.

(8) a. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda.

<INTR.PRV>buy ABS woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought a fish.’

3 The division of labor between T and v in valuing absolutive case is accounted for in the following way. First, I

assume that case is valued when an unvalued ɸ-probe on the case-valuing functional head undergoes Agree with a

DP which has not been valued for case (in accordance with Chomsky, 2001, and subsequent works). Secondly, I

follow Aldridge (2008) in proposing that the ɸ-probe on T is optional. In a transitive clause, v carries a ɸ-probe and

undergoes Agree with the object. Since the external argument is licensed by v with inherent case, it does not need

case from T. In fact, T cannot have a ɸ-probe in a transitive clause, since there is no DP to value it, both the external

and internal arguments having been licensed independently of T. But in an intransitive clause, where v has neither a

a ɸ-probe no an inherent case to assign to the external argument, this probe must appear on T in order to license the

subject.

5

b. TP

V+v+T[uɸ] vP

DP[ABS] v’

<V+v> VP

<V> DP[GEN ]

One final point which must be made about the absolutive extraction restriction is that it applies

only to DPs. PPs and adjuncts are not subject to this restriction. Aldridge’s (2004b, 2008)

approach to the extraction restriction is to posit a category-sensitive EPP, specifically a strong

[uD] feature on transitive v. After valuing absolutive case, the object is attracted by this [uD]

feature and moves to the outer specifier of the vP phase. Aldridge assumes that A’-movement is

also driven by a [uD] feature on C. Consequently, the closer absolutive object will be targeted for

movement rather than the ergative subject. I adopt this proposal with one revision. We can

dispense with the stipulation that A’-movement is driven by a [uD] feature by assuming that the

EPP property is not transferred from C to T (as per the C-T inheritance proposal of Chomsky

2005 and subsequent works) in syntactically ergative languages. This is a reasonable assumption,

given that syntactically ergative languages do not have an identifiable grammatical function of

subject and there is consequently no a priori reason to posit A-movement to [Spec, TP]. The EPP

property is therefore retained on C, resulting in category sensitive locality among DPs

undergoing A’-movement.

Positing that C retains the EPP property also predicts that absolutive DPs move to the CP

layer in declarative clauses as well as relative clauses. This is indeed the case. Aldridge (2004b)

proposes that absolutive final word order in antipassives is derived by moving the absolutive

subject to a low topic position and then fronting the remnant TP to a higher position in the CP

layer.4

(9) a. [TP B<um>ili tABS ng isda] ang babae tTP

<INTR.PRV>buy GEN fish ABS woman

‘The woman bought a fish.’

b. CP

TP C’

DP[ABS] C’

C[uD] <TP>

4 This proposal introduces the possibility that absolutive DPs in Tagalog always raise into the CP layer but can be

spelled out in either the landing site or in their base positions. Consequently, absolutives are analyzed as topics in

declarative clauses. Aldridge (2004b) adopts just such a proposal, first made by Richards (2000).

6

Aldridge argues that VOS word order is not the result of scrambling of the object over the

subject. First, if the object could move to a position above the subject, i.e. the outer specifier of

vP, then it should also be able to undergo A’-movement. But this is not possible, as shown in

(6b). Secondly, the object in an antipassive generally has a nonspecific interpretation.5 If it could

move to the edge of vP, it should be able to be definite or specific, as per Diesing’s (1992)

Mapping Hypothesis, according to which arguments positioned outside VP at LF receive a

presuppositional interpretation.

The reader is referred to Aldridge (2008, 2012a) for further elaboration on the analysis of

case and dislocation in Tagalog and other syntactically ergative languages. The remainder of this

paper makes use of these mechanisms in developing an analysis of HIRCs and HFRCs.

3. Previous Approach to Tagalog Relative Clauses

In this section, I sketch Aldridge’s (2003, 2004a) analyses of the three types of relative clause in

Tagalog. All of them employ the head raising approach to relative clause formation proposed by

Kayne (1994). In HFRCs, the remnant TP also fronts into the DP layer. HIRCs differ from

HFRCs in that head-raising targets the edge of vP in the clause, and TP-fronting does not take

place. At the end of this section, I point out some deficiencies with this analysis of HIRCs which

motivate investigation of a new approach.

3.1. Head-raising+TP-fronting approach to HFRCs

Aldridge (2003) argues for a head-raising analysis of Tagalog relative clauses. In head-initial

relatives, the head NP raises to [Spec, CP] within the embedded clause. Determiners are located

external to the clause and directly select the CP. This is essentially the analysis proposed by

Kayne (1994) for English relative clauses.

(10) a. libro=ng b<in>ili ng babae



b. DP

D’

D CP

libro C’

C TP

... <libro> ...

5 This is typical of objects in antipassive constructions. See also Campbell (2000), Cooreman (1994), Dryer (1990),

Kalmar (1979), Kozinsky et al. (1988), Mithun (2000), Palmer (1994), Rude (1988), Tsunoda (1988), and others for

a similar restriction in other ergative languages.

7

Empirical evidence for the head-raising approach in Tagalog comes from HFRCs, as I discuss

below. First, I sketch the analysis in Aldridge (2003). After the head NP raises to [Spec, CP] in

the embedded clause, the remnant TP fronts to a specifier in the DP layer. This is Kayne’s (1994)

proposal for head-final relative clauses.

(11) a. b<in>ili ng babae=ng libro



b. DP

TP D’

D CP

libro C’

C <TP>

... <libro> ...

One peculiar fact about HFRCs argues strongly for the head-raising analysis. In the examples in

(12), the head NP appears following the embedded clause, which consists of a verb and direct

object. The verb is inflected with intransitive morphology. Since the subject is extracted to form

the relative clause, the clause must be antipassive so the moving subject has absolutive status.

The direct object has genitive case. The “?” with (12a) indicates that the sentence is somewhat

awkward but not ungrammatical.

(12) a. ?B<um>alik ang [[h<um>a-habol ng suspek] na pulis].

<INTR.PRV>return ABS <INTR>PROG-chase GEN suspect LK police

‘The police who were chasing the suspect returned.’

b. Hindi=ko kilala ang [[b<um>a-basa ng diyaryo]=ng lalaki].

NEG=1S.ERG know ABS <INTR>PROG-read GEN paper=LK man

‘I don’t know the man who is reading a newspaper.’

In (13), we see clause-internal material following the head NP. As a general rule, speakers seem

to prefer the portion preceding the head NP to be relatively small. When the clause contains

more than one major constituent in addition to the verb and its auxiliaries, then speakers prefer

stranding part of the clause after the head NP. A goal PP has been stranded in both examples in

(13). The relative in (13a) is formed on a transitive clause. The head NP is the direct object

within the embedded clause. The relative in (13b) is formed on an antipassive, and the head NP

is the external argument.

(13) a. K<in>ain=ko ang [[hindi i-b<in>igay ng babae]=ng

<TR.PRV>eat=1S.ERG ABS NEG APPL-<TR.PRV>give ERG woman=LK

8

kendi sa bata].

candy to child

‘I ate the [candy [that the woman did not give to the child]].’

b. ?[[nag-bigay ng kendi]=ng babae sa bata]

INTR.PRV-give GEN candy=LK woman to child

‘woman who gave candy to the child’

On the surface, the head NPs in (13a, b) appear to be located internal to the clause. But the

following examples show that this is not the case. In (14a, b), the direct object has been stranded

following the head NP. The clause is antipassive in (14a) and ditransitive in (14b).

(14) a.?*B<um>alik ang [[h<um>a-habol] na pulis ng suspek].

<INTR.PRV>return ABS <INTR>PROG-chase LK police GEN suspect


b. *[[b<in>igy-an ng babae]=ng bata ng kendi]

<TR.PRV>give-APPL ERG woman=LK child GEN candy

‘child to whom the woman gave candy’

If the examples in (13) were HIRCs, then those in (14) would likewise be predicted to be

grammatical, since the word orders exhibited within the relative clauses in (14) are perfectly

natural in declarative clauses.

(15) a. B<in>igy-an ng babae ang bata ng kendi.

<TR.PRV>give-APPL ERG woman ABS child GEN candy

‘The woman gave child candy.’

b. H<um>a-habol ang pulis ng suspek.

<INTR>PROG-chase ABS police GEN suspect

‘The police are chasing the suspect.’

Consequently, the asymmetry observed between (13) and (14) suggests that the stranded

constituents are not simply located in their base positions in VP. Aldridge (2003) argues that

stranding possibilities in Tagalog HFRCs correlate with the ability of a constituent to undergo

scrambling to clause-initial position. (16) shows that this is possible for a goal PP.

(16) a. Hindi i-b<in>igay ng babae ang kendi sa bata.

NEG APPL-<TR.PRV>give ERG woman ABS candy to child

‘The woman did not give the candy to the child.’

b. Sa bata hindi i-b<in>igay ng babae ang kendi.

to child NEG APPL-<TR.PRV>give ERG woman ABS candy

‘To the child, the woman did not give the candy.’

In contrast to this, an object with genitive case cannot scramble. This is due to the absolutive

restriction on A’-extraction introduced in section 2. The [uD] feature on C will attract the closest

DP in the edge of vP. In an antipassive like (17a, b), this is the external argument. Antipassive v

is intransitive and does not have an EPP ([uD]) feature. Consequently, the genitive object

9

remains in its base position within VP. Movement of this object would violate the PIC. (17b)

shows that genitive objects cannot scramble in antipassives.

(17) a. B<um>a-basa ang lalaki ng diyaryo.

<INTR>PROG-read ABS man GEN paper

‘The man is reading a newspaper.’

b. *Ng diyaryo b<um>a-basa ang lalaki.

GEN paper <INTR>PROG-read ABS man

‘A newspaper, the man is reading.’

The same is true for the genitive object in a ditransitive. The v in a ditransitive like (18a, b) is

transitive and carries an EPP feature, but this feature will attract the closest DP, which is the

applied object with absolutive case. Following Pylkkanen (2002), I assume that an applied object

is merged in the specifier of an applicative phrase. Consequently, this object is closer to v than

the theme and will be the DP to value absolutive case and undergo movement to the edge of vP.

As in antipassives, the genitive object remains in its base position in VP and cannot move out of

vP without violating the PIC.

(18) a. Hindi b<in>igy-an ng babae ang bata ng kendi.

NEG <TR.PRV>give-APPL ERG woman ABS child GEN candy

‘The woman did not give the candy to the child.’

b. *Ng kendi hindi b<in>igy-an ng babae ang bata.

GEN candy NEG <TR.PRV>give-APPL ERG woman ABS child

‘To the child, the woman did not give the candy.’

As discussed in section 2, movement of DPs is subject to locality because there is a category

sensitive EPP (specifically [uD]) on transitive v and C. Consequently, if a DP undergoes

movement from vP, it will be the absolutive. Put differently, since the EPP feature is a [uD]

feature, only DPs are subject to the locality constraint, and PPs can pass freely through the vP

phase edge when scrambled.

Aldridge (2003) proposes the following analysis of stranding in Tagalog HFRCs. The

stranded constituent achieves its position by means of scrambling out of TP before the remnant

TP fronts to the DP layer.

(19) [DP TP [CP NP [XP PP <TP> ]]]

This subsection has summarized Aldridge’s (2003) arguments that examples like (13a) and (13b)

are not HIRCs but rather must be derived through movement.

3.2. Short head-raising with no TP-fronting in HIRCs

The previous subsection sketched Aldridge’s (2003) analysis of HFRCs. The key argument for

head-raising and remnant TP-fronting came from stranding. A non-DP, which is free to undergo

scrambling, can follow the head NP. But a DP, which is not able to scramble, cannot appear after

the head NP. Aldridge (2004a) identifies the key difference between HFRCs and HIRCs as the

possibility of a DP following the head NP in the latter, as opposed to the former. For this reason,

10

she proposes that the head NP remains internal to the clause and TP-fronting does not take place

in HIRCs.

Aldridge’s (2004a) proposal for Tagalog HIRCs borrows heavily from Basilico’s (1996)

analysis of languages where the internal relative head moves to a position internal to the clause.

In the following example from the Yuman language Cocopa, the head NP xat ‘dog’ in has been

moved from its base position adjacent to the verb to a position outside VP but to the right of the

subject.

Cocopa (Basilico 1996:502)

(20) [John xati su:r ti pa:cu:s-p-ty] u:n

yiL

ycis

John dog rock hit-DEM-SUBJ black.EMPH

‘The dog John hit with the rock was black.’

Basilico proposes that internally headed relative clauses are quantificational. The head NP is an

indefinite and functions as a variable. As such, it must be bound by an operator (Heim 1982).

Consequently, this NP moves to a position internal to the clause, adjoining either to IP or to VP,

where it can be bound by the determiner, which functions as the operator. Basilico also cites

Diesing’s (1992) Mapping Hypothesis in claiming that the head nominal must move out of VP in

order to escape existential closure and be coindexed with the operator.

(21) DP (Basilico 1996:513)

IP Di

VP I

NPi VP

tNP

Aldridge (2004a) proposes an analysis along these lines for Tagalog HIRCs. The head NP moves

to the edge of vP, where it is visible to an operator in the CP layer. Binding by this operator

forms the relative clause.

(22) a. b<in>ili-ng libro ng babae

<PRV>buy-LK book ERG woman


11

b. CP

OPi C’

C TP

binili vP

libroi v’

babae v’

<V+v> VP

<V> <libro>

There are several arguments for short movement of the head NP. The first comes from the word

order. The head NP, which has absolutive status in the embedded clause, appears between the

verb and the ergative DP. As mentioned in section 2, basic word order in Tagalog is VSO.

Specifically, in a transitive clause, the absolutive object typically follows the ergative subject.

Switching the order of these DPs is highly marked and even deemed ungrammatical by some

speakers. It is natural, then, to assume that the head NP in HIRCs undergoes movement and is

spelled out in its landing site in vP.




b. ??B<in>ili ang isda ng babae.

<TR.PRV>buy ABS fish ERG woman


Another argument for movement comes from the fact that Tagalog HIRCs are not ambiguous.

Williamson (1987) notes the potential for ambiguity in the choice of head NP in Lakhota HIRCs,

which do not involve overt movement of the head NP. Hastings (2004) shows that Imbabura

Quechua HIRCs are likewise ambiguous.

Imbabura Quechua (Hastings 2004:120)

(24) [Wawa alku-man rumi-ta shita-shka]-ka yana-mi.

child dog-DAT rock-ACC throw-NMLZ-TOP black-EVID

‘The rock that the child threw at the dog is black.’

‘The child who threw the rock at the dog is black.’

‘The dog that the child threw the rock at is black.’

Hastings proposes that the internal head in Imbabura HIRCs need not undergo raising at LF. The

ambiguity is the natural consequence of this analysis, since identity of the head is not determined

syntactically but rather pragmatically through an anaphoric relationship. In contrast to this, the

12

class of HIRCs which Basilico (1996) analyzes as involving overt clause-internal movement do

not allow for such ambiguity in the choice of head, since movement of the NP places it in a

position where it will be bound by the determiner external to the clause. The lack of ambiguity in

Tagalog is consistent with the proposal that the NP undergoes clause-internal movement.

A final argument for Aldridge’s (2004a) analysis of Tagalog HIRCs comes from locality. As

noted in section 2, the head NP in a Tagalog relative clause of any type must have absolutive

status within the clause. On Aldridge’s (2004b, 2008) analysis, this is because the highest DP in

VP will be attracted by the [uD] feature on transitive v. After moving to the outer specifier of vP,

the absolutive becomes the highest DP in the edge of vP and can be attracted by the [uD] feature

on C. This locality restriction brings Tagalog HIRCs further into line with the movement type.

Basilico (1996) shows that the type of HIRC involving clause-internal movement is island-

sensitive. In contrast, Williamson (1987) shows that Lakhota HIRCs, which do not involve

clause-internal movement, are not island-sensitive. See Grosu (2012) for further discussion of

locality asymmetries in the formation of different types of HIRC.

The true defining characteristic of Tagalog HIRCs according to Aldridge (2004a) is the fact

that a DP, generally the ergative subject, can follow the head NP. If HIRCs were derived in the

same way as HFRCs, this DP would have to scramble out of TP so it would not be carried into

the DP layer when remnant TP-fronting takes place. However, given that ergative DPs are

subject to the absolutive restriction on A’-extraction, they cannot undergo scrambling, since this

would require movement past the absolutive DP in the outer specifier of vP.

(25) a. B<in>ili ng babae ang libro.

<PRV>buy ERG woman ABS book

‘The woman bought the book.’

b. *Ng babae b<in>ili ang libro.

ERG woman <PRV>buy ABS book

‘The woman bought the book.’

Aldridge (2004a) thus concludes that the ergative DP resides in its base position in [Spec, vP].

The head NP moves to an outer specifier of vP, allowing it to precede the ergative DP in surface

order. This NP does not continue moving to [Spec, CP], and TP-fronting does not take place. The

relative clause is formed when a null operator is merged in [Spec, CP] and coindexed with the

head NP in the edge of vP.

However, a serious questions is left open by this analysis, which I turn to in the following

section. A linker appears in both HFRCs and HIRCs. In both cases, the linker appears between

the head NP and the part of the predicate which surfaces to its left, suggesting a parallel between

these types of relative clause that is left unexplained if the head NP remains internal to TP in

HIRCs. I discuss this problem in section 4 and further show that both HFRCs and HIRCs display

the same word order possibilities with respect to material in the DP layer. This suggests that both

types of relative clause involve fronting into the DP layer. In section 5, I propose a revised

analysis of HIRCs which is parallel to the one proposed by Aldridge (2003) for HFRCs but

involving a reduced clause consisting of only a vP.

13

4. Parallels between HFRC and HIRC in the DP Layer

In this section, I show that Tagalog HFRCs and HIRCs are parallel in their behavior with respect

to interaction with material in the DP layer.

4.1. Linker

Tagalog has two linkers which appear between modifiers and the elements they modify. When

following a vowel, the linker is ng, which is pronounced as the velar nasal. When following a

consonant, the linker takes the form of na6. (26) shows the position of linkers in relative clauses.

In head-initial relatives, the linker follows the head NP. In HFRCs and HIRCs, the linker

precedes the head NP.

(26) a. libro=ng b<in>ili ng babae (head-initial)



b. b<in>ili ng babae=ng libro (HFRC)



c. b<in>ili=ng libro ng babae (HIRC)

<PRV>buy=LK book ERG woman


Linkers are found in a variety of modification contexts. (27a) shows linkers appearing along the

DP spine with a demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun. Linkers also appear in verbal

contexts, for example between an adverb and the VP it modifies, as in (27b). But there is no

independent evidence for the assumption required by the analysis in (22b) that a linker can

appear between a verb and the noun it modifies along the clausal spine.

(27) a. ito=ng dalawa=ng mahaba=ng libro

this.ABS=LK two=LK long=LK book

‘these two long books’

b. Mabilis na t<um>a-takbo ang babae.

fast LK <INTR>PROG-run ABS woman

‘The woman is running fast.’

The fact that linkers occur naturally along the DP spine in nominal modification contexts

suggests that linkers in relative clauses are likewise located in the DP layer. The appearance of a

linker between the head NP and the predicative material to its left can be accounted for if these

elements occupy similar positions in both structures.

6 The linker na occurs in other contexts as well, such as following a pause or when the preceding modifier is longer

than a single word, as is often the case in HFRCs. Because of its relative phonological independence, I treat it as a

word, as opposed to “ng”, which is always syllabified with the preceding vowel.

14

4.2. Position of demonstratives

HFRCs and HIRCs are also parallel in terms of the position of a demonstrative. A demonstrative

must surface peripheral to the clause and cannot appear between the head NP and predicative

material to its left. (28) shows this for HIRCs.

(28) a. Hindi brand new [ito=ng b<in>ili=ng helicopter

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK <TR.PRV>buy=LK helicopter

ng ahensya noong 2009].

ERG agency in 2009

‘This helicopter that the agency bought in 2009 is not brand new.’

b. *Hindi brand new [ang b<in>ili=ng ito=ng helicopter

NEG brand new ABS <TR.PRV>buy=LK this.ABS=LK helicopter


ERG agency in 2009


(29) shows that the same is true for HFRCs. Note that the examples in (29) are HFRCs, because

the head NP follows the ergative subject within the modifying clause. The temporal adverbial is

stranded to its right either by scrambling or by base generation in a TP adjoined position.

(29) a. Hindi brand new [ito=ng [b<in>ili ng ahensya] na

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK <TR.PRV>buy ERG agency LK

helicopter noon 2009].

helicopter in 2009


b. *Hindi brand new [ang [b<in>ili ng ahensya] na

NEG brand new ABS <TR.PRV>buy ERG agency LK

ito=ng helicopter noon 2009].

this.AB=-LK helicopter in 2009


Aldridge (2004a) accounts for the inability of the demonstrative to occur with the head NP in

HIRCs by citing the indefiniteness restriction found in HIRCs in certain languages like Lakhota

(Williamson 1987) and the Gur languages (Tellier 1989, Hiraiwa 2003). As Williamson (1987)

shows, a definite determiner cannot appear with the head NP inside a HIRC in Lakhota.

Lakhota (Williamson 1987:171)

(30) a. [[Mary owįža wą] ka e] ki] he ophewathų

Mary quilt a make the DEM I-buy

‘I bought the quilt that Mary made.’

b. *[[Mary owįža ki] ka e] ki] he ophewathų

Mary quilt the make the DEM I-buy

‘I bought the quilt that Mary made.’

15

However, such an account of (28b) leaves the ungrammaticality of (29b) unexplained, since

externally headed HFRCs are not subject to the indefiniteness restriction. The parallel behavior

exhibited by HFRCs and HIRCs in Tagalog argues against positing the different relativization

strategies proposed by Aldridge (2004a). In section 6, I propose parallel derivations for the two

types of relative clause. The following subsection offers further indication that the uniform

approach is on the right track.

4.3. Position of numerals and adjectives

In this subsection, I show that not only demonstratives but also numerals and adjectival

modifiers exhibit parallel behavior in HIRCs and HFRCs. (31) shows that numerals and

adjectivals can either precede or follow the predicative material preceding the head NP in a

HIRC.

(31) a. Hindi brand new [ito=ng tatlo=ng malaki=ng

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK 3=LK big=LK

b<in>ili=ng helicopter ng ahensya noong 2009].

<TR.PRV>buy=LK helicopter ERG agency in 2009

‘These three big helicopters that the agency bought in 2009 are not brand new.’

b. Hindi brand new [ito=ng b<in>ili=ng tatlo=ng malaki=ng

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK <TR.PRV>buy=LK 3=LK big=LK

helicopter ng ahensya noong 2009].

helicopter ERG agency in 2009


c. Hindi brand new [ito=ng tatlo=ng b<in>ili=ng malaki=ng

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK 3=LK <TR.PRV>buy=LK big=LK

helicopter ng ahensya noong 2009].

helicopter ERG agency in 2009


Exactly the same paradigm can be observed in HFRCs.

(32) a. Hindi brand new [ito=ng tatlo=ng malaki=ng b<in>ili

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK 3=LK big=LK <TR.PRV>buy

ng ahensya=ng helicopter noong 2009].

ERG agency=LK helicopter in 2009


b. Hindi brand new [ito=ng b<in>ili ng ahensya=ng

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK <TR.PRV>buy ERG agency=LK

tatlo=ng malaki=ng helicopter noong 2009].

3=LK big=LK helicopter in 2009


c. Hindi brand new [ito=ng tatlo=ng b<in>ili ng ahensya=ng

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK 3=LK <TR.PRV>buy ERG agency=LK

16

malaki=ng helicopter noong 2009].

big=LK helicopter in 2009


The parallel in word order possibilities strongly suggests a common derivation. Given the

evidence discussed in section 3.1 that HFRCs are derived by moving the remnant clause into the

DP layer, the word order similarities exhibited by HIRCs likewise points to a remnant movement

approach.

4.4. HIRCs and HFRCs as DPs

A number of claims have been made that HIRCs are bare CPs and not DPs (Broadwell 1985 for

Chocktaw, Murasugi 1994 for Japanese, Chung 1999 for Korean, and others). This claim has

been largely refuted, at least for the Japanese/Korean type (Hoshi 1995, Lee 2006, and others).

For example, Hoshi (1995) argues extensively for the nominal status of Japanese HIRCs,

showing that they can serve as the subject of secondary predicate or launch a floating quantifier.

Floating quantifiers, for example, can only be associated with nominal arguments and not

adjuncts.

Japanese (Hoshi 1995:35; from Fujita 1994, example 118)

(33) a. Gakusei-ga go=nin hon-o ni-satu kat-ta.

student-NOM 5=CL book-ACC 2-CL buy-PAST

‘Five of the students bought two of the books.’

b. *John-ga kyoo [PP kooen-de] itu=tu ason-da.

John-NOM today park-at 5=CL play-PAST

‘John played at five of the parks today.’

Quantifier float has been claimed to be subject to a locality restriction whereby the quantifier and

NP must mutually c-command each other at some level of representation (Ueda 1986, Miyagawa

1989). Consequently, a quantifier inside VP cannot be construed with an external argument.

(34) *Gakusei-ga [VP momo-o go=nin tabe-ta].

student-NOM peach-ACC 5=CL eat-PAST

‘Five of the students ate peaches.’

(35a) shows that a floated quantifier can be construed with the head NP inside a HIRC. In (35b),

the quantifier is floated outside of the clause. The locality restriction prevents the quantifier from

being construed directly with the NP inside the clause. Consequently, the quantifier must be

construed with the clause as a whole. Since a floating quantifier cannot be construed with an

adjunct, the relative clause must be a nominal argument.

Japanese (Hoshi 1995:39-40)

(35) a. Ken-wa [[Risa-ga teeburu-no ue-ni ringo-o mitsu oiteoita]

Ken-TOP Risa-NOM table-GEN on-DAT apple-ACC 3 had.put

17

no]-o totte tabeta.

NO-ACC take ate

‘Risa had put three (of the) apples on the table, and Ken picked up and ate them.’

b. Ken-wa [[Risa-ga teeburu-no ue-ni ringo-o oiteoita]

Ken-TOP Risa-NOM table-GEN on-DAT apple-ACC had.put

no]-o mitsu totte tabeta.

NO-ACC 3 take ate

‘Risa had put apples on the table, and Ken picked up and ate three of them.’

Nor can a floated quantifier be construed with an NP inside a complement clause, which is a bare

CP. According to Hoshi, this argues conclusively that the floated quantifier in (36b) must be

construed with the relative clause as a whole.

Japanese (Hoshi 1995:36-7)

(36) a. Risa-wa karaokebaa-de [[Ken-ga tatetuzukeni kayookyoku-o

Risa-TOP karaoke bar-at Ken-NOM in a row pop song-ACC

san-kyoku utau] no]-o bonyari mite-ita.

3-tune sing NM-ACC blankly gaze-was

‘At the karaoke bar, Risa was gazing blankly at Ken’s singing three (of the) pop

songs in a row.’

b. *Risa-wa karaokebaa-de [[Ken-ga tatetuzukeni kayookyoku-o

Risa-TOP karaoke bar-at Ken-NOM in a row pop song-ACC

utau] no]-o san-kyoku bonyari mite-ita.

sing NM-ACC 3-tune blankly gaze-was

‘At the karaoke bar, Risa was gazing blankly at Ken’s singing three (of the) pop

songs in a row.’

Tagalog HIRCs and HFRCs also clearly have nominal properties. As seen in sections 4.2 and 4.3,

they co-occur with demonstratives, numerals, and adjectives. They are also case-marked. The

demonstrative ito additionally encodes absolutive case when preceding an NP. The examples

considered in this paper up to this point have shown Tagalog HIRCs with absolutive case in the

matrix clause. (37) shows examples with genitive case (as a possessor) and with dative case.

(37) a. Nang-hi-hinayang ang anak ng [p<in>aslang na

INTR.PRV-PROG-regret ABS child GEN <TR.PRV>insult LK

broadcaster at environmentalist]…. (dzmm.com.ph: 09/12/2012)

broadcaster CONJ environmentalist

‘The son of the insulted broadcaster and environmentalist regrets that….’

b. Batay sa [i-pr<in>isinta=ng panukala

base DAT APPL<TR.PRV>present=LK plan

ng advertising company sa MMDA] …. (Remate; 09/21/2012)

ERG advertising company DAT MMDA

‘According to the plan which the advertising company presented to Metro Manila

Development Authority, ….’

18

Adjuncts in Tagalog are never case-marked. Complement clauses also do not take case markers

but are introduced by linkers. Linkers serving as complementizers also exhibit the phonological

alternation observed above, depending on whether the preceding sound is a vowel or a consonant.

(38) a. Gusto ng babae [CP =ng [p<um>unta sa Amerika]].

want ERG woman =LK <INTR.PRV>go to America

‘The woman wants to go to the US.’

b. Gusto=rin ng kanya=ng anak [CP =na [p<um>unta sa Amerika]].

want=also ERG 3S.GEN=LK child =LK <INTR.PRV>go to America

‘Her child also wants to go to the US.’

Finally, any type of relative clause in Tagalog can be clefted. The clefted constituent occurs in

clause-initial position. Given the absolutive restriction on A’-extraction, this constituent always

has absolutive status within the embedded clause. The embedded clause constitutes a headless

relative clause, which follows the clefted material and is preceded by the absolutive case marker.

The reader is referred to Paul (2001), Potsdam (2006), Cole et al. (to appear), Aldridge (2014)

among many others for detailed analyses of clefts in Tagalog and other Austronesian languages.

(39) a. Ang [DP libro=ng [CP i-s<in>ulat ni Maria]]

ABS book=LK APPL-<TR.PRV>write ERG.PN Maria

ang b<in>asa=ko. (Head-initial)

ABS <TR.PRV>read=1S.ERG

‘The book that Maria wrote was the one that I read.’

b. Ang [DP [CP i-s<in>ulat ni Maria]=ng libro]

ABS APPL-<TR.PRV>write ERG.PN Maria=LK book

ang b<in>asa=ko. (HFRC)



c. ?Ang [DP [CP i-s<in>ulat na libro ni Maria]]

ABS APPL-<TR.PRV>write LK book ERG.PN Maria-LK

ang b<in>asa=ko. (HIRC)



Only DPs in Tagalog can be clefted. Non-DPs can be focused by scrambling to clause-initial

position. The different structures are clear from the absence of the absolutive case marker

preceding the clause in (40b) and also from the position of the clitic subject pronoun ko. Clitics

in Tagalog appear in second position within the tensed CP where they are base generated. The

clitic appears inside the headless relative in the cleft in (40a). In (40b), the clitic appears

following the focused adjunct, clearly showing that the adjunct resides within the CP where the

clitic was base merged.

(40) a. Libroi ang [CP Opi [TP b<in>ili=ko ti ]].

book ABS <TR.PRV>buy=1S.ERG

‘A book is what I bought.’

19

b. [CP Kahapon=koi [TP p<um>unta ti sa Maynila ]].

yesterday=1S.ERG <INTR.PRV>go DAT Manila

‘I went to Manila yesterday.’

This section has argued that HIRCs and HFRCs in Tagalog both project a DP layer. The relative

positions of material in the DP layer with TP-internal material preceding the head NP are also

parallel, suggesting that both types of relative are derived by fronting all or part of the embedded

clause into the DP layer. If this is true, then both types of relative clause must be analyzed as

externally headed relative clauses. In the following section, I propose such analysis.

5. Revised Analysis of HIRCs

The preceding two sections have identified some structural parallels between HIRCs and HFRCs

in Tagalog. Both are subject to the absolutive restriction on A’-extraction, arguing for a

derivation involving movement of the head NP. Both also exhibit word orders in which all or

part of the clause appears to the left of a linker. Given that linkers generally occur with DP-

internal material such as adjectives, numerals, and demonstratives, word order in HIRCS, like

HFRCs, seems to involve fronting of the remnant predicate to the position in the DP layer

hosting the linker.

In this section, I propose parallel analyses of HIRCs and HFRCs along these lines. Both are

derived through head raising and fronting of the remnant clause into the DP layer. The

differences between them are accounted for by positing that HIRCs are reduced relatives

consisting only of a vP dominated by a DP layer. As such, Tagalog HIRCs are a type of mixed

projection (Abney 1987; Borsley and Kornfilt 2000; Baker 2005, 2011; Grohmann and

Panagiotidis 2009; and others). Specifically, Tagalog HIRCs are reduced relative clauses with

genitive subjects7 of the type proposed by Krause (2001), Aygen (2002), Miyagawa (2008, 2011),

and others.

(41) a. b<in>ili-ng libro ng babae (HIRC)

<PRV>buy-LK book ERG woman


7 Recall from section 2 that ergative case is morphologically genitive and that transitive clauses in Tagalog were

reanalyzed diachronically from nominalizations.

20

b. DP (HIRC)

D LkP

VP Lk’

Lk vP

DP8 v’

DP[ERG] v’

v <VP>

… <DP> …

To account for the appearance of a linker between the fronted VP and head nominal, I posit that

the target of VP raising is the specifier of a linker phrase. I assume with den Dikken and

Singhapreecha (2004) and den Dikken (2006) that a linker heads its own projection, which I term

LkP. I do not, however, take the linker to be a semantically vacuous head merely reflecting the

application of predicate inversion within the DP. Rather, I propose that the Tagalog linker

expresses the predication between the head NP and the rest of the clause. This is the function

attributed by den Dikken (2006) to a lower functional head which he calls “relator”. In my

analysis, the functions of the relator and linker can be considered to be collapsed into the single

category of linker. I further assume that a LkP can be merged anywhere on the DP spine below

the D head, accounting for the appearance of linkers with all DP-internal material, as discussed

in section 4.1.

(42) ito=ng dalawa=ng mahaba=ng libro

this.ABS=LK two=LK long=LK book

‘these two long books’

Assuming that demonstratives occupy the highest functional projection in the DP, this proposal

also accounts for the fact that fronted material in relative clauses can precede or follow numerals

and adjectives but not demonstratives. The demonstrative can be analyzed as occupying the D

position, while the highest position for a linker is below D.

(43) a. Hindi brand new [ito=ng b<in>ili=ng helicopter

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK <TR.PRV>buy=LK helicopter


ERG agency in 2009


b. *Hindi brand new ang [b<in>ili=ng ito=ng helicopter

NEG brand new ABS <TR.PRV>buy=LK this.ABS=LK helicopter

8 I assume that this DP contains a null D head, as per Bianchi (1999).

21


ERG agency in 2009


In contrast to demonstratives, the fronted predicate can either precede or follow numerals and

adjectives. For example, the alternation in (44) can be accounted for by merging the LkP for the

fronted predicate between D and NumP (44a) or below Num (44b).

(44) a. Hindi brand new [ito=ng [LkP b<in>ili=ng tatlo=ng helicopter

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK <TR.PRV>buy=LK 3=LK helicopter

ng ahensya noong 2009]].

ERG agency in 2009

‘These three helicopters that the agency bought in 2009 are not brand new.’

b. Hindi brand new [ito=ng tatlo=ng [LkP b<in>ili=ng helicopter

NEG brand new this.ABS=LK 3=LK <TR.PRV>buy=LK helicopter

ng ahensya noong 2009]].

ERG agency in 2009

‘These three helicopters that the agency bought in 2009 are not brand new.’

Given the strong approach to locality taken in this paper, it may be questioned at this point how

the VP is able to escape the vP phases as it moves to [Spec, LkP]. I assume that it makes an

intermediate stop in the edge of this phase before reaching its final landing site in [Spec, LkP].

But since the VP is not a DP, it is not affected by the category-specific [uD] EPP feature on the v

which accounts for the strict locality among moving DP arguments. VP is thus free to pass

through a phase edge along its path of movement.

The introduction of LkP for HIRCs also calls for minor modification of the analysis of

HFRCs presented in section 3.1. To maintain the parallelism with HIRCs, I assume that LkP can

also serve as the landing site for the fronted TP in HFRCs. The only significant difference

between the derivations of HFRCs and HIRCs is the size of the embedded clause, which is a full

CP in the case of HFRCs. The head nominal moves to the edge of this clause, [Spec, CP].

Following this, the remnant TP fronts to the specifier of LkP. As in the case of VP movement

through the edge of vP, I likewise assume that TP can pass through the CP phase edge since it is

not subject to the strict locality induced by the [uD] feature on C.

(45) a. b<in>ili ng babae=ng libro (HFRC)



22

b. DP (HFRC)

D LkP

TP Lk’

Lk CP

DP C’

C XP

PP <TP>

… <DP> …

Recall from section 4 that the word order interactions between the fronted TP and material in the

DP layer are identical to those for the fronted VP in HIRCs. This is accounted for in the same

way as HIRCs, specifically by merging the LkP serving as the landing site for the remnant TP

movement either above or below NumP.

The account of PP or adjunct stranding in HFRCs is unchanged from Aldridge (2003). The

stranded material undergoes scrambling to a position above TP and surfaces in clause-final

position after the remnant TP fronts to [Spec, LkP]. The inability of a DP to be stranded in

HFRCs is accounted for in the same way as in Aldridge (2003). DPs are unable to scramble and

consequently must remain internal to the fronted TP.

(46) a. ?[[nag-bigay ng kendi]=ng babae sa bata]

INTR.PRV-give GEN candy=LK woman to child

‘woman who gave candy to the child’

b. *[[b<in>igy-an ng babae]=ng bata ng kendi]

<TR.PRV>give-APPL ERG woman=LK child GEN candy

‘child to whom the woman gave candy’

However, given the availability of vP for the structure of a relative clauses derived through

predicate fronting to the DP layer, it is now necessary to consider whether stranding of a genitive

object is possible in HIRCs. It should be clear that the current proposal predicts this possibility.

In section 3.1, I argued that the asymmetry between (47a) and (47b), which are both antipassives,

can be accounted for by analyzing both as HFRCs in which the stranded DP in (47b) would have

to scramble out of vP, which would violate the PIC.

(47) a. ?B<um>alik ang [[h<um>a-habol ng suspek] na pulis].

<INTR.PRV>return ABS <INTR>PROG-chase GEN suspect LK police


b.?*B<um>alik ang [[h<um>a-habol] na pulis ng suspek].

<INTR.PRV>return ABS <INTR>PROG-chase LK police GEN suspect


23

However, the reduced relative clause structure in (41b) offers a different possibility. The order in

(47b) could be derived by scrambling the object to be stranded within vP in order to vacate the

VP before it fronts into the DP layer. Since the object does not leave vP, it does not violate the

PIC. The key, then, to accounting for the degradedness of (47b) is in explaining why the object is

not eligible to scramble within vP. I suggest here that this possibility depends on the

interpretation of the object. As mentioned in section 2, there is an asymmetry between objects

with absolutive case in transitive clauses and those with genitive case in antipassives. Absolutive

objects are definite or specific, while objects in antipassives are generally indefinite and

nonspecific.



‘The woman bought the/*a fish.’

b. B<um>ili ang babae ng isda.

<INTR.PRV>buy ABS woman GEN fish

‘The woman bought a/*the fish.’

Next, consider the relative clause in (49), which is an antipassive like (47b) with head NP

surfacing between the verb and genitive object. Unlike the stranded object in (47b), however, the

stranded object in this example is easily interpreted as specific because of the PP modifier “sa

iyo” (‘to you’). Rackowski and Travis (2000) propose that specific objects in antipassives in the

related language Malagasy can move out of VP. I propose that the derivation of (49) also

involves scrambling of the genitive object out of VP before the remnant VP fronts to the

specifier of the linker phrase. Conversely, the degraded status of (47b) is due to the fact that

speakers have difficulty interpreting the relatively bare object as specific.

(49) Hindi=ko kilala [DP ang [LkP [VP s<um>ulat tDP ] na [vP lalaki

NEG=1S.ERG know ABS <INTR.PRV>write LK man

[DP ng love letter sa iyo] tVP ]]]

GEN love letter to you

‘I don’t know the man who wrote a/the love letter to you.’

Let me further point out that the stranded material in (49) is indeed a single constituent, with the

PP contained within the object DP. (49) becomes ungrammatical if the PP is separated from the

object, as in (50).

(50) ?*Hindi=ko kilala ang s<um>ulat sa iyo na lalaki

NEG=1S.ERG know ABS <INTR.PRV>write to you LK man

[DP ng love letter tPP ]

GEN love letter

‘I don’t know the man who wrote a/the love letter to you.’

One final point to be made here is the licensing of the head NP in a HIRC built on an antipassive.

As discussed in section 2, absolutives are licensed by T in antipassives, but the relative clause

structure in (41b) does not contain a finite T. However, the linker is available to supply case to

24

the subject, and I assume that this is how the head NP is licensed in examples like (49).

Existential or possessive constructions like (51) provide evidence that linkers serve as case

markers in certain contexts. Note the absence of another case marker for the possessee in (51).

(51) Mayroon=g libro si Maria.

exist=LK book ABS.PN Maria

‘Maria has a book.’

To summarize the proposal made in this paper, I have argued that HIRCs are like HFRCs in that

they are derived by moving the head NP to the edge of the relative clause and then fronting the

remnant clause into the DP layer. The difference between HFRCs and HIRCs is that the former

embeds a full CP, while the latter is a reduced relative consisting of only a vP. The availability of

these two relativization strategies accounts for the following word order possibilities. The head

NP in HIRCs is preceded by the verb and any auxiliary verbs and can be followed by a DP. This

DP can be either the ergative subject in a transitive clause or the genitive object in an antipassive.

In HFRCs, the head NP can be preceded by the verb and a DP9 but not followed by a DP. All of

these orders have been shown to be grammatical in the language. The crucial order which is

excluded by both types of relative clause derivation is one in which the head NP is both preceded

and followed by a DP, as in (46b). This is because the derivation would require movement of the

lower DP (specifically a genitive object) outside of the constituent containing the verb and

external argument. Since this constituent is larger than VP, movement of the object would invoke

a violation of the PIC and is therefore excluded on the analysis of locality assumed in this paper.

This ungrammaticality also militates against an analysis of this type of relative clause as

internally headed, since leaving the clause-final DP in situ in VP would not be predicted to

induce a derivation crash.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, I have proposed that Tagalog has no true internally headed relative clauses. Rather,

it has two types of externally headed prenominal relatives. One of them consists of a full CP

clausal structure dominated by a DP layer, while the other is a reduced relative clause consisting

of only a vP dominated by a DP layer. In both cases, the relative head raises from its argument

position to the edge of the embedded clause. This raising is followed by fronting of the remnant

clause into the DP layer. Both types of relative clause sometimes appear on the surface to be

HIRCs, but this illusion is the result of stranding when the remnant TP or VP moves into the DP

layer.

The parallel analyses account for key similarities between these two types of relative clause:

1) the fact that both are derived through movement; 2) the presence of a linker between the

fronted predicate and head nominal; and 3) the same possible positions for demonstrative,

numeral, and adjective in the DP containing a prenominal relative clause.

The proposal also accounts for differences between the two types of prenominal relatives.

The HIRC allows stranding of nominal arguments following the raised head nominal. A stranded

ergative DP will simply remain in its base position in the edge of vP when the remnant VP fronts

9 Specifically, the head NP in a HFRC is generally preceded by the verb and one XP, which can be a DP or other

overt constituent. Most likely for prosodic reasons, the fronted clause generally does not contain more than one XP,

as pointed out in section 3.1.

25

to the DP layer. A genitive object in an antipassive can also be stranded if it is interpreted as

specific and hence eligible for scrambling outside the VP to be fronted. In contrast to this,

HFRCs allow stranding only of non-DPs, i.e. PPs and adverbials, which are capable of

scrambling outside of vP. Ergative and genitive DPs cannot be stranded in HFRCs, because this

would require them to scramble outside of TP before TP fronting into the DP layer takes place.

Movement of an ergative DP outside of vP is blocked by absolutive DP, which has been attracted

to the outer specifier of vP by the EPP feature on v and consequently is the only DP eligible to

undergo further movement. A genitive DP is never attracted to the edge of vP and is therefore

trapped inside this phase by the PIC.

References

Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Aldridge, Edith. 2003. Remnant Movement in Tagalog Relative Clause Formation. Linguistic

Inquiry, Squibs and Discussion, 34.4:631-640.

Aldridge, Edith. 2004a. Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Austronesian Languages.

Language and Linguistics 5.1:99-129.

Aldridge, Edith. 2004b. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Doctoral

dissertation, Cornell University.

Aldridge, Edith. 2008. Generative approaches to ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass:

Syntax and Morphology 2.5, 966-995.

Aldridge, Edith. 2012. Antipassive and Ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122:192-203 (Special Issue

Accounting for Ergativity, guest-edited by Beatriz Fernández and Itziar Laka).

Aldridge, Edith. 2014. Wh-clefts and Verb-initial Word Order in Austronesian Languages. In

Katharina Hartmann and Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Cleft Structures. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Aygen, N. Gulsat. 2002. Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. Doctoral dissertation,

Harvard University.

Baker, Mark C. 2005. On gerunds and the theory of categories. Ms., Rutgers University.

Baker, Mark C. 2011. Degrees of nominalization: Clause-like constituents in Sakha. Lingua

121:1164-1193.

Basilico, David. 1996. Head position and internally headed relative clauses. Language 72.3:498-

532.

Bianchi, Valentia. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Borsley, Robert and Jaklin Kornfilt. 2000. Mixed extended projections. In Robert Borsley (ed.),

Syntax and semantics, vol. 32: The nature and function of syntactic categories, 101-131.

New York: Academic Press.

Bricker, Victoria. 1981. The Source of the Ergative Split in Yucatec Maya. Journal of Mayan

Linguistics 2.2: 83-127.

Broadwell, George A. 1985. Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Choctaw.Kansas Working

Papers in Linguistics 10.2:16-24.

Campana, Mark. 1992. A Movement Theory of Ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, McGill

University.

26

Campbell, Lyle. 2000. Valency-changing derivations in K’iche’. In:Dixon R., Aikhenvald,

A.(Eds.., Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. CambridgeUniversity Press, pp.

236-281.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J.

(Eds.),Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT

Press,Cambridge, MA, pp. 89-155.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.),Ken Hale: A Life in

Language. MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-52.

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In: Belletti, A. (Ed.), Structures and

Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3. OxfordUniversity Press, pp.

104-191.

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36.1:1-22.

Chung, Daeho. 1999. A Complement Analysis of the Head Internal Relative Clauses.Korean

Society for Language and Information 3.2:1-12.

Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermo, and Norhaida Aman. To appear. Clefted questions in Malay. In

David Gil and James Collins (eds). Malay/Indonesian Linguistics. London: Curzon Press.

Cooreman, Ann. 1994. A Functional Typology of Antipassive. In Voice: Form and Function. B.

Fox and P. Hopper, eds., 49-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press

den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion,

and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

den Dikken, Marcel and Pornsiri Singhapreecha. 2004. Complex Noun Phrases and Linkers.

Syntax 7.1:1-54.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dryer, Matthew. 1990. What determines antipassive in Dyirbal? In: No, Y., Libucha, M. (Eds.),

Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. The

OhioStateUniversity, pp.90-101.

Fujita, Naoya. 1994. On the Nature of Modification: A study of floating quantifiers and related

constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.

Gildea, Spike. 1998. On Reconstructing Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

Grohmann, Kleanthes and E. Phoevos Panagiotidis. 2009. Mixed projections: Categorial

switches and prolific domains. Linguistic Analysis 35:141-161.

Grosu, Alexander. 2012. Towards a More Articulated Typology of Internally Headed Relative

Constructions: The Semantics Connection. Language and Linguistics Compass 1-30.

Hastings, Rachel. 2004. The Syntax and Semantics of Relativization and Quantification: The

case of Quechua. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Hiraiwa, Ken. 2003. Relativization in Buli. Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar

Languages 4:45-84 (Studies in Buli Grammar).

Hoshi, Koji. 1995. Structural and Interpretive Aspects of Head-Internal and Head-External

Relative Clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.

Johns, Alana. 1992. Deriving Ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry 23:57-88.

Kalmar, I. 1979. The Antipassive and Grammatical Relations in Eskimo. In F. Plank, ed.,

Ergativity, 117-143. New York: Academic Press.

27

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kozinsky, Isaac, Vladimir Nedjalkov, Maria Polinskaja. 1988. Antipassive in Chukchee: Oblique

Object, Object Incorporation, Zero Object. In M. Shibatani, ed., Passive and Voice, 651-706.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Krause, Cornelia. 2001. On Reduced Relatives with Genitive Subjects. Doctoral dissertation,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Lee, Jeongrae. 2006. The Korean Internally-Headed Relative Clause Construction: Its

Morphological, Syntactic and Semantic Aspects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.

Legate, Julie. 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Legate, Julie. 2008. Morphological and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 55-101.

Mahajan, Anoop. 1989. Agreement and Agreement Projections, in I. Laka and A. Mahajan (eds.),

MIT Working papers in Linguistics, Vol. 10: Functional Heads and Clause Structure. MIT

Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, 217-252.

Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations.

Center for the Study of Language and Information,Stanford.

Mithun, Marianne. 2000. Valency-changing Derivation in Central Alaskan Yup’ik. In R. M. W.

Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald, eds., Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, 84-114.

Cambridge University Press.

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese, Syntax and Semantics (vol.

22). New York: Academic Press.

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2008. Genitive subjects in Altaic. In Cedric Boeckx and Suleyman Ulutas

(eds.), Proceedings of the 4th

Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics (WAFL-4), 181-198.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua

121:1265-1282.

Murasugi, Keiko. 1994. Head-internal Relative Clauses as Adjunct Pure Complex NPs. In

Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Language: A festschrift for Toshio Nakao, ed. by

S. Chiba et al., 425-437. Tokyo: Liber Press.

Palmer, F. R. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge University Press.

Paul, Ileana. 2001. Concealed pseudo-clefts. Lingua 111.10:707-727.

Potsdam, Eric. 2006. More concealed pseudoclefts in Malagasy and the clausal typing hypothesis.

Lingua 116:2154-2182.

Pylkkanen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice, and the Distribution of

Arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Rackowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase Edge and Extraction: A Tagalog Case

Study. Linguistic Inquiry 36.4:565-599.

Rackowski, Andrea and Lisa Travis. 2000. V-initial Languages: X or XP movement and

adverbial placement. In A. Carnie and E. Guilfoyle, eds., The Syntax of Verb Initial

Languages, 117-142. Oxford University Press.

Richards, Norvin. 2000. Another Look at Tagalog Subjects. In I. Paul, V. Phillips, L. Travis, eds.,

Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics, 105-116. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

28

Ross, Malcoom. 2009. Proto Austronesian Verbal Morphology: A reappraisal. In Alexander

Adelaar and Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History:

A festschrift for Robert Blust, 295-326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Rude, N. 1988. Ergative, passive, and antipassive in Nez Perce: A discourse perspective. In:

Shibatani, M. (Ed.,) Passive and Voice. John Benjamins,Amsterdam, pp. 85-142.

Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1981. The evolution of focus in

Austronesian. Paper presented at the 3rd

International Conference on Austronesian

Linguistics, Bali.

Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. The evolution of focus in

Austronesian. In Amram Halim, Lois Carrington, and S. A. Wurm (eds.), Third International

Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 145-170. Pacific Linguistics, C-75.

Tellier, C. 1989. Head-internal relatives and parasitic gaps in Moore. In Isabelle Haïk and

Laurice Tuller (eds.), Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol. 6), 298-318.

Travis, Lisa. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky (eds.),

Events as Grammatical Objects, 145-185. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and

Information.

Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1988. Antipassives in Warrungu and Other Australian Languages. In M.

Shibatani, ed., Passive and Voice, 595-649. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ueda, Masanobu. 1986. On quantifier float in Japanese. University of Massachusetts Occasional

Papers in Linguistics 11:263-309.

Williamson, Janis. 1987. An Indefiniteness restriction on relative clauses in Lakhota. In Eric

Reuland and Alice G. B. ter Meulen (eds.) The Representation of Indefiniteness, 168-190.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Wolff, John. 1973. Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In Andrew Gonzalez (ed.), Essays in

Honor of Cecilio Lopez on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, 71-91. Philippine Journal of

Linguistics, Special Monograph Issue No. 4. Linguistic Society of the Philippines, Quezon

City.

Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way Case Systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 679-728.

Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry

37.1: 111-130.

Documents

Remnant Movement and Relative Clauses in Tagalog 1 ...faculty.washington.edu/aldr/pdf/IHRC_rvd.pdf2 (2) a. Bili ng babae ang isda. buy ERG woman ABS fish ‘The