Modification as Reprojection
Norio Suzuki

Kobe Shinwa Women’s University

The goals of this paper are twofold: (i) To make an attempt to reanalyze restrictive
relative constructions in terms of a Münchhausen feature (Fanselow 2004) & theconcept of “reprojection” (as applied in Hornstein and Uriagereka 2002); & (ii) To
propose a new way of looking at the Strict Cycle Condition (SCC) on narrow-syntactic(NS) derivation by accommodating restrictive relatives with a complex head while
keeping at the same time to the strict mode of head movement, according to which only
the (non-complex) head (i.e., X0; namely, n or N for the purposes here) raises to become
the “head” of the relative construction. Take a look at the following restrictive relative
construction:(1)a. the picture of himself that John likes(with the underlined elements referring to the same individual)b.

[CP that John likes [n picture]](⇒ n-raising to the relative ‘head’ position)b’. [nP [n picture][CP that John likes tn ]](tn : n’s original position; n projects in the derived position;⇒ checking of n’s probe and structure-building features)b’’. [nP the [n’ picture of himself][CP that John likes tn ]](⇒ semantic reconstruction of n’ to n’s original position & ‘reprojection’ yielding
the ultimate ‘pragmatic/semantic’ topic/comment structure)b’’’. [nP [nP the [n’ picture of himself]][CP that John likes [nP picture of himself]]](checking of n’s [topic]-feature is implemented via the ’reprojected’ structure (1b’’’))

I assume the nP/NP approach to nominal phrases instead of the DP approach (Georgiand Müller 2010, Chomsky 2007 for the former approach). I also follow Bhatt (2002) inassuming that “… the constituent that raises out of the CP is an NP and not a DP.” Asfor the reason for n-raising in (1b’), I tentatively take the trigger to be a [topic]-feature,
which I assume to have been assigned to n from the “pragmatics” module at the time ofstrong v phasal TRANSFER via the “invasive” approach to the FLN-interfaces
connection in the sense of López (2003). And I follow the general “reprojection”
framework of Georgi and Müller 2010 in postulating (part of) the lexical organizationconsisting of probe features (for ‘Agree’) and structure-building/subcategorization
features (for ‘Merge’), along with their checking mechanism crucially involving aMünchhausen feature (Fanselow 2004), which is a probe feature co-occurring with its
corresponding subcategorization feature (Georgi and Müller 2010). Then as for the SCC
as it applies to (1b’, b’’), I follow its version indicated in Georgi and Müller (2010: 13):
SCC: “Only the head of the present root can have features that trigger operations.” In1(1b’) n (picture) is the head of the root and hence, it is free to implement its various
checking operations to yield (1b’’). And as for the “topic/comment” structure in (1b’’’),
the structure-building part of n’s [topic]-feature is checked via the presence of the CP
comment in a sisterhood/mutual c-command relation with the nP topic involving it, and,as a matter of fact, the probe part (i.e., a Münchhausen feature of some sort) of n’s[topic]-feature has already been checked in (1b’), where it can c-command CP for thepurposes of Agree.
Given the framework and assumptions above, let us see some recalcitrant examples
to see how they work in their analysis:(2) a. The picture of himself (that) John painted in art class is impressive.
b. *?The picture of himself which John painted in art class is impressive.
(from Aoun and Li 2003: 111, (46a, c))(3) a. (The derivation for the subject in (2a) roughly proceeds successfully as in (1).)
b. [nP [n picture][CP John painted tn in art class]] (after n-raising due to [topic]-feature)b’. [nP the [n’ which [n’ picture of himself][CP John painted tn in art class]](after checking of n’s probe and subcategorization features; both the & which are Ds)

Presumably, (2b) is almost ungrammatical for roughly whatever reason ruling out suchcases as: *my the book, *that your sister, *the book which that I read. Then examine thederivation of the following:(4 ) a. the book the author of which I know personally (from Kayne 1994: 91, (31))
b.

[CP I know [n author] personally](n with a [topic] and some other features)b’. [nP the [n’ author of [nP which [n book]]][CP I know tauthor personally]](checking of author’s probe & subcategorization features; book has checked one of its
two D-associated features to check)b’’. [nP the [n’ book][nP the [n’ author of which tbook][CP I know tauthor personally]]](checking of book’s other D-associated features)

In (4) the two Ds, which and the, associated with book may be accommodated because
they belong in two different projections with a distinctive head. Notice that (4) ispragmatically/semantically a double structure with the author of which & CP as topic &comment, and the book & nP (with author as head) as topic & comment. [800 words]
References: Aoun & Li. 2003. Essays on representational and derivational nature of grammar./ Bhatt, R. 2002.
The raising analysis of relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 10./ Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG frombelow./ Fanselow, G. 2004. Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb second. In Linguistics inPotsdam 22./ Georgi, D. and G. Müller. 2010. Noun-phrase structure by reprojection. Syntax 13./ Hornstein &Uriagereka. 2002. Reprojections. In Derivation and explanation in the MP./ Kayne 1994. The antisymmetry ofsyntax./ López, L. 2003. Steps for a well-adjusted dislocation. Studia Linguistica 57: 193-231.

2