1. The status of Adjunction The nature of Adjunction: Attributive Adjectives Relative Clauses Adverbs Other Adjuncts (PPs, Reason Clauses, etc.)

Properties of adjunction in a complex construction Non-canonical complement: the clause is not an argument of a lexical head. Non-canonical wh-movement: the clause contains a wh-dependency which (i) is not associated with interrogative semantics. (ii) serves to link a position inside the clause and an item outside that clause.

Questions related to the status of Adjuncts: Do heads select for adjuncts or vice-versa? What principles determine the order of adjuncts? Can they be sisters to complements? How should adjuncts be introduced by rules of grammar?

RCs as Adjuncts Chomsky (1977), Safir (1986), and Browning (1991) have theorized that: a. Adjunction Hypothesis: Relative clauses are adjoined to NP. b. Base-generated head hypothesis: The head noun of a relative clause is base-generated outside that clause. For instance: (1) [DP the [NP [NP claimj ] [CP OPj that John made tj ]]]

Some alternatives Smith (1969): Relative clauses are sisters (complements) to determiners. Vergnaud (1974): Head-raising hypothesis: the external head N originates inside CP and is linked with a CP-internal position by syntactic movement. Spontaneous derivation: Determiner complement hypothesis: The Relative clause is syntactic complement of the determiner head of DP. Head raising hypothesis: The NP raises from inside the Relative clause.

Problems of Adjunct Hypothesis Problem: unfulfilment of Binding theory and C-command requirement (2) [DP The [NP picture of himself]i [CP OPi that Johni painted ti ]] Evidence for Head Raising Hypothesis: (i) Achievement of C-command configuration at LF. (3) The interest in each otheri that John and Maryi showed interest in each otheri was fleeting. (Jackendoff 1972, Schachter 1973) (ii) Satisfying the requirement of Binding Theory (4) [DP The [CP [picture of himself]i [C that [IP Johni painted ti ]]]]

Current view of RC in the Head Raising Hypothesis (Kayne 1994) (5) The book which John read… DP D CP the QP /DP C’ [booksi [which ti]j C TP John reads tj              

Firstly, selectional relation between a DET and related RC: Evidence for the complement structure of RCs in Vietnamese, supporting Kaynean structure of RC Firstly, selectional relation between a DET and related RC: (6) a. She is that kind of person. b. She is the kind of person *(that is always complaining). (7) a. He did it in that way. b. He did it the *(that annoyed me).

Supporting evidence in Vietnamese  (8) a. ba-ta la mot nguoi phu-thuy She is a CLA evil ‘She is an evil.’ b. ba-ta la mot loai phu-thuy *(chuyen an thit heo) she is a CLA evil (only eat meat pig) ‘She is the kind of evil person who eats only pig’s meat.’ (9) a. anh-ta thuong hoi theo kai loi *(ma lam ban buk-minh) b. he often ask according CLA way that make you annoy ‘He often asks in a way that makes you annoyed.’

Vietnamese evidence in supporting the Head Raising Hypothesis Secondly, it proves that the data in (10) from Reflexive Binding show similar reconstruction as in (3). (10) [CP[ buk tranh ve chinh anh-ta ]k[Cma Johnk ve tk ,.. [CLA picture about self him/ he] that John drew ‘The picture of himself that John drew’

3. Head Raising Analysis of RC in Vietnamese 3.1 The mysterious occurrence of the Rel-Pro ma (11) nguoi dan-ongk ma ban gap tk hom-qua group man that you meet yesterday, … ‘The man that you met yesterday… ’ (12) kau bek nguoi * ma tk thi rot tuan qua la ban kua nam boy small CLA that examine fail week last is friend of Nam ‘The small boy who failed last week is Nam’s friend.’  ma is obligatory for object relatives, but optional or bad for subject relatives.

Kaynean structure in connection with the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) 3.2 Minimalist Economy Principle: Equidistance: If ,  are in the same minimal domain,they are equidistant from . MIN (CH1) = {Spec1, Spec2, ZP} (13) XP Spec1 X’ X YP Spec2 Y’ Y ZP

Illustrated data in Vietnamese (14) kanh hoa ma John mua CLA flower that John bought ‘The flowers which John bought.’   DP D CP kanh Spec C’ C IP ma John VP V DP   mua hoa Hello, you are crossing me !

Problem in the derivation of (14) Minimal Link Condition (MLC):  can raise to K only if there is no legitimate operation Move  targeting K, where  is closer to K.  By MLC, the derivation in (14) should be ungrammatical; BUT it is not. Kayne (1994): only motivation for the Head Raising analysis is empirical, the head D and its complement do not form a constituent. But, infusing Antisymmetry with MLC will only strengthen the theory further.

Conclusion Rel-Comp ma is needed to be realised at C in order to satisfy Equidistance in the case of object relatives; not in the case of subject relatives since extraction of the NP does not cross another NP: tree new slide for reference

What’s in it for Parsing? kanh hoa ma John mua CLA flower that John bought ‘The flowers which John bought.’ ma marks an (object) RC No need to identify an RC structure as adjunct No need to plug an RC in the main clause No need for any special feature for RCs