Relative pronoun pied-piping,
the structure of which informs
the analysis of relative clauses
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine & Hadas Kotek
National University of Singapore & McGill University
mitcho@nus.edu.sg, hadas.kotek@mcgill.ca

SuB 20
September 2015

TodayEnglish allows the construction of relative clauses (RC) which use
wh-words as relative pronouns, fronted to the edge of the RC.
(1) English relative pronoun RC:[DP The person [RC who. John asked
an idiot.

.

for help]] thinks John is(McCawley, 1988, p. 417) .

Today: We investigate the structure and interpretation of relative
pronoun pied-piping (RPPP). (We do not discuss that/∅ RC.)
(2) The relative pronoun can pied-pipe material with it:[DP The person [RC [RPPP whose. parrot] John asked . for help]]
thinks John is an idiot. .
2

TodayEnglish allows the construction of relative clauses (RC) which use
wh-words as relative pronouns, fronted to the edge of the RC.
(1) English relative pronoun RC:[DP The person [RC who. John asked
an idiot.

.

for help]] thinks John is(McCawley, 1988, p. 417) .

Today: We investigate the structure and interpretation of relative
pronoun pied-piping (RPPP). (We do not discuss that/∅ RC.)
(2) The relative pronoun can pied-pipe material with it:[DP The person [RC [RPPP whose. parrot] John asked . for help]]
thinks John is an idiot. .
2

Roadmap§1 Background§2 New evidence from intervention eﬀects§3 Proposal§4 Conclusion

3

Roadmap§1 Background• the interpretation of relative clauses• the problem of pied-piping• two syntactic approaches§2 New evidence from intervention eﬀects§3 Proposal§4 Conclusion

4

Interpreting restrictive RCs

English RCs come in restrictive and non-restrictive (appositive,
supplemental) varieties.
Both can use relative pronouns with (some degree of) pied-piping.
Consider first a simple restrictive RC, as in (3).
(3) Every semanticist [RC who I met at SuB] gave a great presentation.
Following Quine (1960); Partee (1973), a.o., the restrictor of every is the setof individuals satisfying semanticist and “λx . I met x at SuB.”

5

Interpreting restrictive RCs

English RCs come in restrictive and non-restrictive (appositive,
supplemental) varieties.
Both can use relative pronouns with (some degree of) pied-piping.
Consider first a simple restrictive RC, as in (3).
(3) Every semanticist [RC who I met at SuB] gave a great presentation.
Following Quine (1960); Partee (1973), a.o., the restrictor of every is the setof individuals satisfying semanticist and “λx . I met x at SuB.”

5

Interpreting non-restrictive RCs
Non-restrictive RCs have a very diﬀerent semantics, traditionallycompared to an independent (conjoined) clause: (Quine, 1960; Taglicht,
1972; Thorne, 1972; Emonds, 1979; McCawley, 1981; de Vries, 2006)(4) Mary, who I met at SuB, gave a great presentation.
≈ Mary gave a great presentation. (And) I met Mary at SuB.
(

Following Potts (2005) and citations there, this meaning introduced by
the non-restrictive RC is not part of the asserted content.

)☞ This meaning, “I met Mary at SuB,” is derived by combining thereferent described, Mary, with the predicate “λx . I met x at SuB.”

6

Interpreting non-restrictive RCs
Non-restrictive RCs have a very diﬀerent semantics, traditionallycompared to an independent (conjoined) clause: (Quine, 1960; Taglicht,
1972; Thorne, 1972; Emonds, 1979; McCawley, 1981; de Vries, 2006)(4) Mary, who I met at SuB, gave a great presentation.
≈ Mary gave a great presentation. (And) I met Mary at SuB.
(

Following Potts (2005) and citations there, this meaning introduced by
the non-restrictive RC is not part of the asserted content.

)☞ This meaning, “I met Mary at SuB,” is derived by combining thereferent described, Mary, with the predicate “λx . I met x at SuB.”

6

The RC denotes a predicate
For both restrictive and non-restrictive RCs, then, we need the RC
structure to yield the derived predicate “λx. I met x at SuB.”☞ This predicate “λx. I met x at SuB” is formed through movement of
the relative pronoun, interpreted as λ -abstraction.
RC
who
.

TP

→

I met t. at SuB
(

RC

.
who
.

λx

TP
I met x. at SuB

Here, assume the relative pronoun is semantically vacuous, as in Heimand Kratzer (1998, p. 186).

)

7

The RC denotes a predicate
For both restrictive and non-restrictive RCs, then, we need the RC
structure to yield the derived predicate “λx. I met x at SuB.”☞ This predicate “λx. I met x at SuB” is formed through movement of
the relative pronoun, interpreted as λ -abstraction.
RC
who
.

TP

→

I met t. at SuB
(

RC

.
who
.

λx

TP
I met x. at SuB

Here, assume the relative pronoun is semantically vacuous, as in Heimand Kratzer (1998, p. 186).

)

7

The RC denotes a predicate
For both restrictive and non-restrictive RCs, then, we need the RC
structure to yield the derived predicate “λx. I met x at SuB.”☞ This predicate “λx. I met x at SuB” is formed through movement of
the relative pronoun, interpreted as λ -abstraction.
RC
who
.

TP

→

I met t. at SuB
(

RC

.
who
.

λx

TP
I met x. at SuB

Here, assume the relative pronoun is semantically vacuous, as in Heimand Kratzer (1998, p. 186).

)

7

The problem of pied-piping
This process is complicated with relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP):(5) The girl [RC [RPPP whose brother] I met at SuB]...
.

RC

whose brother
.

TP

RC

→ whose brother.

I met t. at SuB

λxTP

I met x. at SuB

Again, movement and λ-abstraction gives us “λx . I met x at SuB.”
But this is not the predicate we want. For the correct interpretation,
we need to somehow derive “λx . I met [x’s brother] at SuB.”
8The problem of pied-piping
This process is complicated with relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP):(5) The girl [RC [RPPP whose brother] I met at SuB]...
.

RC

whose brother
.

TP

RC

→ whose brother.

I met t. at SuB

λxTP

I met x. at SuB

Again, movement and λ-abstraction gives us “λx . I met x at SuB.”
But this is not the predicate we want. For the correct interpretation,
we need to somehow derive “λx . I met [x’s brother] at SuB.”
8The problem of pied-piping
This process is complicated with relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP):(5) The girl [RC [RPPP whose brother] I met at SuB]...
.

RC

whose brother
.

TP

RC

→ whose brother.

I met t. at SuB

λxTP

I met x. at SuB

Again, movement and λ-abstraction gives us “λx . I met x at SuB.”
But this is not the predicate we want. For the correct interpretation,
we need to somehow derive “λx . I met [x’s brother] at SuB.”
8The problem of pied-piping
Two ways to solve this problem of pied-piping:1.

Covert movement of the wh-pronoun out of the pied-piping
(6)
(

2.

[RC who. λy [[RPPP who. ’s brother]. λx . I met x....]] .

Or similarly: movement of the head of the RC from the relative
pronoun itself (Kayne, 1994).

)

Interpretthe pied-piping as is, with the relative pronoun in-situ()
See von Stechow (1996, 2000) for a similar discussion for wh-piedpiping.

Today: An argument for the second approach for non-restrictive RCs.
9

The problem of pied-piping
Two ways to solve this problem of pied-piping:1.

Covert movement of the wh-pronoun out of the pied-piping
(6)
(

2.

[RC who. λy [[RPPP y.’s brother]. λx . I met x....]] .

Or similarly: movement of the head of the RC from the relative
pronoun itself (Kayne, 1994).

)

Interpretthe pied-piping as is, with the relative pronoun in-situ()
See von Stechow (1996, 2000) for a similar discussion for wh-piedpiping.

Today: An argument for the second approach for non-restrictive RCs.
9

The problem of pied-piping
Two ways to solve this problem of pied-piping:1.

Covert movement of the wh-pronoun out of the pied-piping
(6)
(

2.

[RC who. λy [[RPPP y.’s brother]. λx . I met x....]] .

Or similarly: movement of the head of the RC from the relative
pronoun itself (Kayne, 1994).

)

Interpretthe pied-piping as is, with the relative pronoun in-situ()
See von Stechow (1996, 2000) for a similar discussion for wh-piedpiping.

Today: An argument for the second approach for non-restrictive RCs.
9

The problem of pied-piping
Two ways to solve this problem of pied-piping:1.

Covert movement of the wh-pronoun out of the pied-piping
(6)
(

2.

[RC who. λy [[RPPP y.’s brother]. λx . I met x....]] .

Or similarly: movement of the head of the RC from the relative
pronoun itself (Kayne, 1994).

)

Interpretthe pied-piping as is, with the relative pronoun in-situ()
See von Stechow (1996, 2000) for a similar discussion for wh-piedpiping.

Today: An argument for the second approach for non-restrictive RCs.
9

Roadmap§1 Background§2 New evidence from intervention eﬀects• Intervention in wh-question pied-piping• Intervention in relative clause pied-piping§3 Proposal§4 Conclusion and open questions

10

New evidence from intervention eﬀects

Today: The wh relative pronoun in non-restrictive RCs is interpreted
in-situ inside the pied-piping, specifically using Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation (squiggly arrow) (Hamblin, 1973; Rooth, 1985, a.o.).
(7) [.RC [[RPPP who. ’s brother]. λx . I met x....]] .

Evidence for this approach comes from intervention eﬀects...

11

New evidence from intervention eﬀects

Today: The wh relative pronoun in non-restrictive RCs is interpreted
in-situ inside the pied-piping, specifically using Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation (squiggly arrow) (Hamblin, 1973; Rooth, 1985, a.o.).
(7) [.RC [[RPPP who. ’s brother]. λx . I met x....]] .

Evidence for this approach comes from intervention eﬀects...

11

Alternative computation and intervention eﬀects
Descriptively, in-situ wh-elements cannot be c-commanded byinterveners: certain quantifiers, negative elements, ...
(8) Japanese: Intervention eﬀects avoided through scramblinga.

✓

Hanako-ga nani-o yon-da-no?
Hanako-NOM what-ACC read-PAST-Q‘What did Hanako read?’b. ?* Dare-mo nani-o yom-ana-katta-no?
no.one what-ACC read-NEG-PAST-Q
c.

✓Nani-odare-mo.

.

what-ACC no.one

yom-ana-katta-no?
read-NEG-PAST-Q‘What did no one read?’.
Examples from Tomioka (2007).
12

Alternative computation and intervention eﬀects
Descriptively, in-situ wh-elements cannot be c-commanded byinterveners: certain quantifiers, negative elements, ...
(8) Japanese: Intervention eﬀects avoided through scramblinga.

✓

Hanako-ga nani-o yon-da-no?
Hanako-NOM what-ACC read-PAST-Q‘What did Hanako read?’b. ?* Dare-mo nani-o yom-ana-katta-no?
no.one what-ACC read-NEG-PAST-Q
c.

✓Nani-odare-mo.

.

what-ACC no.one

yom-ana-katta-no?
read-NEG-PAST-Q‘What did no one read?’.
Examples from Tomioka (2007).
12

Alternative computation and intervention eﬀects
Descriptively, in-situ wh-elements cannot be c-commanded byinterveners: certain quantifiers, negative elements, ...
(8) Japanese: Intervention eﬀects avoided through scramblinga.

✓

Hanako-ga nani-o yon-da-no?
Hanako-NOM what-ACC read-PAST-Q‘What did Hanako read?’b. ?* Dare-mo nani-o yom-ana-katta-no?
no.one what-ACC read-NEG-PAST-Q
c.

✓Nani-odare-mo.

.

what-ACC no.one

yom-ana-katta-no?
read-NEG-PAST-Q‘What did no one read?’.
Examples from Tomioka (2007).
12

Intervention eﬀects

Intervention eﬀects aﬀect regions of alternative computation, but not(overt or covert) movement (Beck, 2006; Beck and Kim, 2006; Kotek and
Erlewine, to appear; Kotek, 2014, 2015)(9) Intervention aﬀects alternatives, not movement:a.

* [CP C ... intervener... wh
.
. ]

b.

✓

[CP C ... wh. intervener ... t. ].

13

Wh-pied-piping and intervention eﬀects

We can also observe intervention eﬀects in wh-question pied-piping.
(10) Jim owns a. picture of. which.
. president.
a. [Which president] does Jim own a picture of?

b. [Of which president] does Jim own a picture?

c. [A picture of which president] does Jim own?

14Wh-pied-piping and intervention eﬀects

We can also observe intervention eﬀects in wh-question pied-piping.
(10) Jim owns a. picture of. which.
. president.
a. [Which president] does Jim own a picture of?

b. [Of which president] does Jim own a picture?

c. [A picture of which president] does Jim own?

14Wh-pied-piping and intervention eﬀects

We can also observe intervention eﬀects in wh-question pied-piping.
(10) Jim owns a. picture of. which.
. president.
a. [Which president] does Jim own a picture of?

b. [Of which president] does Jim own a picture?

c. [A picture of which president] does Jim own?

14Wh-pied-piping and intervention eﬀects

We can also observe intervention eﬀects in wh-question pied-piping.
(10) Jim owns a. picture of. which.
. president.
a. [Which president] does Jim own a picture of?

b. [Of which president] does Jim own a picture?

c. [A picture of which president] does Jim own?

14

Pied-piping and intervention eﬀects
Cable (2007): In the derivation of a question like (10c), two steps occur:• Movement of the pied-piping constituent to Spec,CP.
• Inside pied-piping, wh is interpreted via Rooth-Hamblin alternative

computation between wh and the edge of pied-piping.
(11) Interpreting (10c) via movement & alternative computation:[pied-piping A. picture .of which. president] does Jim own . ? .
.
(Rooth-Hamblin alternatives

movement with pied-piping

A similar proposal has also been made for pied-piping in focus movement (Krifka, 2006; Wagner, 2006; Erlewine and Kotek, 2014).

)15

Wh-pied-piping and intervention eﬀects
Sauerland and Heck (2003); Cable (2007); Kotek and Erlewine (to appear)show that intervention eﬀects occur inside pied-piped constituents:(12) Intervention eﬀect in English pied-piping: (exx Cable, 2007)a.

[A picture of which president] does Jim own?

b.

* [No pictures of which president] does Jim ownc.

* [Few pictures of which president] does Jim own

d.

* [Only PICTURES of which president] does Jim own?
?
?

If an intervener is placed between the wh-word and the edge of its
pied-piping constituent, it results in ungrammaticality.
(13) The pied-piping intervention schema:... wh*[pied−piping ... intervener
.
. ].
16

Wh-pied-piping and intervention eﬀects
Sauerland and Heck (2003); Cable (2007); Kotek and Erlewine (to appear)show that intervention eﬀects occur inside pied-piped constituents:(12) Intervention eﬀect in English pied-piping: (exx Cable, 2007)a.

[A picture of which president] does Jim own?

b.

* [No pictures of which president] does Jim ownc.

* [Few pictures of which president] does Jim own

d.

* [Only PICTURES of which president] does Jim own?
?
?

If an intervener is placed between the wh-word and the edge of its
pied-piping constituent, it results in ungrammaticality.
(13) The pied-piping intervention schema:... wh*[pied−piping ... intervener
.
. ].
16

Predictions for Relative Pronoun Pied-Piping
Recall: Two theories for the interpretation of RPPP
1.

Covert movement of the wh-pronoun out of the pied-piping
(14)

2.

[RC wh. λy [[RPPP ... y. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]] .

In-situ interpretation of the wh-pronoun using Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation(15)[RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
Prediction: expect intervention eﬀects iﬀ alternatives are used

2. !

17

Predictions for Relative Pronoun Pied-Piping
Recall: Two theories for the interpretation of RPPP
1.

Covert movement of the wh-pronoun out of the pied-piping
(14)

2.

[RC wh. λy [[RPPP ... y. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]] .

In-situ interpretation of the wh-pronoun using Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation(15)[RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
Prediction: expect intervention eﬀects iﬀ alternatives are used

2. !

17

Predictions for Relative Pronoun Pied-Piping
Recall: Two theories for the interpretation of RPPP
1.

Covert movement of the wh-pronoun out of the pied-piping
(14)

2.

[RC wh. λy [[RPPP ... y. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]] .

In-situ interpretation of the wh-pronoun using Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation(15)[RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
Prediction: expect intervention eﬀects iﬀ alternatives are used

2. !

17

Predictions for Relative Pronoun Pied-Piping
Recall: Two theories for the interpretation of RPPP
1.

Covert movement of the wh-pronoun out of the pied-piping
(14)

2.

✓

[RC wh. λy [[RPPP ... intervener ... y. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]] .

In-situ interpretation of the wh-pronoun using Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation(15)* [RC [[.RPPP ... intervener... wh.
. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
Prediction: expect intervention eﬀects iﬀ alternatives are used

2. !

17

Intervention in RPPP

☞ Relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP) in non-restrictive relatives issensitive to this form of intervention:
(16)

a.

✓

b.

* This is the unfortunate recipe, [[no ingredients for which] I
have at home].

This is the unfortunate recipe, [[an ingredient for which] I
am missing].

18

Intervention in RPPP

☞ Relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP) in non-restrictive relatives issensitive to this form of intervention:
(16)

a.

✓

b.

* This is the unfortunate recipe, [[no ingredients for which] I
have at home].

This is the unfortunate recipe, [[an ingredient for which] I
am missing].

18

Intervention in RPPP

This pattern is not limited to no. It occurs with other known pied-piping
interveners (Cable, 2007, 2010; Kotek and Erlewine, to appear; Erlewine andKotek, 2014):

(17)

a.

✓

This recipe, [[three ingredients for which] I have...],b.

??

This recipe, [[only [one]F ingredient for which] I have...],c.

??

This recipe, [[very few ingredients for which] I have...],

19

Intervention in RPPP
It is also not the case that these are strange meanings in some way...
☞ No intervention if smaller pied-piping is chosen:
(18)

a.

* [RC [RPPP no ingredients for which] I have

...]

b.

✓

[RC [RPPP for which] I have no ingredients

at home]c.

✓[RC [RP which] I have no ingredients for(=16b)

at home]

NB: This contrast shows that the pied-piping constituent is not uniformly
reconstructed into its base position. That would predict no contrast
between these pied-piping options.
(19) Hypothetical LFs with reconstructed RPPP:[RC I have no. ingredients for. which. at home ].
20Summary

We observe intervention eﬀects in RPPP whenever an intervener
occurs above the relative pronoun, inside its pied-piping.

☞ This is explained if RPPP in non-restrictive RCs is interpreted using
Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation, but not if RPPP isinterpreted using (covert) movement of the relative pronoun.

21

Support from RPPP with islands

Further support against the movement approach comes from island
diagnostics (Ross, 1967). (Covert) movement is island-sensitive.
☞ The relative pronoun can be inside a syntactic island, inside the
RPPP.
(20)

a.
b.

This portrait, [[the background of which] is quite stunning],?

This portrait, [[the background that was chosen for which] isquite stunning], is...

22

Intervention eﬀects and restrictive RCs☞ Non-restrictive RCs allow for larger pied-piping than restrictives(Emonds, 1976, 1979; Jackendoﬀ, 1977; Nanni and Stillings, 1978, a.o.).

(21) Larger pied-piping in non-restrictive relatives: (exx Cable, 2010)a.

This book, [RC [RPPP the reviews of which] were awful], isreally quite nice.

b.

* No book [RC [RPPP the reviews of which] are awful] is reallyquite nice.

23

Intervention eﬀects and restrictive RCs

Hence we cannot test intervention eﬀects in restrictive relatives:
(22)

a.

* QR is one topic [[an/every/the/some article(s) about which]the journal rejected].

b.

* QR is one topic [[only one/no/very few article(s) about
which] the journal rejected].

☞ We will argue that this is not a coincidence, but points to afundamental diﬀerence between restrictive and non-restrictive
relatives.

24

Roadmap§1 Background§2 New evidence from intervention eﬀects§3 Proposal§4 Conclusion and open questions

25

Proposal

We propose that Relative Pronoun Pied-Piping in English non-restrictive
RCs is interpreted using Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation.
(23) [RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
• Alternative computation is a method of semantic composition inanother “dimension.”• Alternative computation has been used for the interpretation of

in-situ focus (Rooth, 1985, 1992), as well as for interrogative
wh-words (Hamblin, 1973; Beck, 2006, a.o.).

26

Proposal

We propose that Relative Pronoun Pied-Piping in English non-restrictive
RCs is interpreted using Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation.
(23) [RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
• Alternative computation is a method of semantic composition inanother “dimension.”• Alternative computation has been used for the interpretation of

in-situ focus (Rooth, 1985, 1992), as well as for interrogative
wh-words (Hamblin, 1973; Beck, 2006, a.o.).

26

Proposal

We propose that Relative Pronoun Pied-Piping in English non-restrictive
RCs is interpreted using Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation.
(23) [RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
• Alternative computation is a method of semantic composition inanother “dimension.”• Alternative computation has been used for the interpretation of

in-situ focus (Rooth, 1985, 1992), as well as for interrogative
wh-words (Hamblin, 1973; Beck, 2006, a.o.).

26

Alternative computation
For example, for a wh-in-situ question, alternatives are computed
between the in-situ wh-word and C (Hamblin, 1973; Beck, 2006, a.o.).
(24) [ C. [TP Alex likes who. ]]o.Ordinary semantic values are computed using J·K and the alternatives
f(focus semantic values) using J·K (Rooth, 1992, a.o.).
(25) The denotation of a wh-word:(Beck, 2006)oa. JwhoK undefinedfb. JwhoK = the set of human individuals = {Bobby, Chris, Dana...}27

Alternative computation
For example, for a wh-in-situ question, alternatives are computed
between the in-situ wh-word and C (Hamblin, 1973; Beck, 2006, a.o.).
(24) [ C. [TP Alex likes who. ]]o.Ordinary semantic values are computed using J·K and the alternatives
f(focus semantic values) using J·K (Rooth, 1992, a.o.).
(25) The denotation of a wh-word:(Beck, 2006)oa. JwhoK undefinedfb. JwhoK = the set of human individuals = {Bobby, Chris, Dana...}27

Alternative computationfo

J·K is computed recursively, like J·K , composing alternatives pointwise.
(26)

oa. JTPK undefined λw . Alex likes Bobby in w, fb. JTPK =λw . Alex likes Chris in w,
 λw . Alex likes Dana in w,... fC takes the alternatives in its complement (JTPK ) to form the question
denotation (Beck and Kim, 2006; Kotek, 2014, a.o.). The alternatives inf
JTPK correspond to possible answers to the question.

28

Alternative computation
This works for the interpretation of wh-question pied-piping, too.
(27) [ [PP whose brother] [ λx [ you like x ] ] ]f(28) Jwhose
brotherK = the set of brothers
=




Andrew(=
Bobby’sbrother),Bill (= Chris’s brother), Fred (= Dana’s brother) 





 λw . you like Andrew (= Bobby’s brother) in w, f(29) J(27)K =λw . you like Bill (= Chris’s brother) in w,
 λw . you like Fred (= Dana’s brother) in w This combines the pied-piping constituent with the rest of the question toderive the correct set of possible answers.
29

Alternative computation
This works for the interpretation of wh-question pied-piping, too.
(27) [ [PP whose brother] [ λx [ you like x ] ] ]f(28) Jwhose
brotherK = the set of brothers
=




Andrew(=
Bobby’sbrother),Bill (= Chris’s brother), Fred (= Dana’s brother) 





 λw . you like Andrew (= Bobby’s brother) in w, f(29) J(27)K =λw . you like Bill (= Chris’s brother) in w,
 λw . you like Fred (= Dana’s brother) in w This combines the pied-piping constituent with the rest of the question toderive the correct set of possible answers.
29

Alternative computation
This works for the interpretation of wh-question pied-piping, too.
(27) [ [PP whose brother] [ λx [ you like x ] ] ]f(28) Jwhose
brotherK = the set of brothers
=




Andrew(=
Bobby’sbrother),Bill (= Chris’s brother), Fred (= Dana’s brother) 





 λw . you like Andrew (= Bobby’s brother) in w, f(29) J(27)K =λw . you like Bill (= Chris’s brother) in w,
 λw . you like Fred (= Dana’s brother) in w This combines the pied-piping constituent with the rest of the question toderive the correct set of possible answers.
29

Alternative computation for RPPP

Now consider the RPPP. In order to construct the derived predicate “λx . I
met [x’s brother] at SuB,” we need the RPPP to provide a function fromindividuals to their brothers.
(30) Mary, [RC [[.RPPP whose. brother] λx . I met x at SuB ]],...
.
☞ However, a naive attempt to interpret RPPP using Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation runs into diﬀiculties.

30

Alternative computation for RPPP

Now consider the RPPP. In order to construct the derived predicate “λx . I
met [x’s brother] at SuB,” we need the RPPP to provide a function fromindividuals to their brothers.
(30) Mary, [RC [[.RPPP whose. brother] λx . I met x at SuB ]],...
.
☞ However, a naive attempt to interpret RPPP using Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation runs into diﬀiculties.

30

Alternative computation for RPPP

(30) Mary, [RC [[RPPP whose brother] λx . I met x at SuB ]],...
f(31) Jwhose
brotherK = the set ofbrothers =John(= Mary’s brother), Bill (= Chris’s brother), Fred (= Dana’s brother) 





 λw . I met John at SuB in w, f(32) JRCK =λw . I met Bill at SuB in w,
 λw . I met Fred at SuB in w 31

Alternative computation for RPPP

(30) Mary, [RC [[RPPP whose brother] λx . I met x at SuB ]],...
f(31) Jwhose
brotherK = the set ofbrothers =John(= Mary’s brother), Bill (= Chris’s brother), Fred (= Dana’s brother) 





 λw . I met John at SuB in w, f(32) JRCK =λw . I met Bill at SuB in w,
 λw . I met Fred at SuB in w 31

Alternative computation for RPPPThe problem: this meaning of RC could be derived from the correct
mapping: Mary → John, Chris → Bill, Dana → Fred.
But it can also be obtained from other possible functions,e.g. Mary → Fred, Chris → John, Dana → Bill.
 λw . I met John at SuB in w, f(32) JRCK =λw . I met Bill at SuB in w,
 λw . I met Fred at SuB in w Once we compute the RC, the correct mapping between individuals andtheir brothers cannot be recovered.
This problem has been observed by previous authors (Rooth 1992 fn. 15,
citing Ede Zimmermann (p.c.); Sternefeld 2001; Sauerland and Heck 2003),
leading them to ultimately not pursue this approach to the interpretationof RPPP.
32

Alternative computation for RPPPThe problem: this meaning of RC could be derived from the correct
mapping: Mary → John, Chris → Bill, Dana → Fred.
But it can also be obtained from other possible functions,e.g. Mary → Fred, Chris → John, Dana → Bill.
 λw . I met John at SuB in w, f(32) JRCK =λw . I met Bill at SuB in w,
 λw . I met Fred at SuB in w Once we compute the RC, the correct mapping between individuals andtheir brothers cannot be recovered.
This problem has been observed by previous authors (Rooth 1992 fn. 15,
citing Ede Zimmermann (p.c.); Sternefeld 2001; Sauerland and Heck 2003),
leading them to ultimately not pursue this approach to the interpretationof RPPP.
32

The antecedent of a non-restrictive relative

Important: Non-restrictive relatives require a referential antecedent(Thorne, 1972; Karttunen, 1976; McCawley, 1988; Potts, 2002, a.o.).

The antecedent of a non-restrictive relative is an E-type anaphor (Sells,
1985; Demirdache, 1991; Del Gobbo, 2007). This is motivated throughparallels between non-restrictive RCs and cross-sentential anaphora.

33

The antecedent of a non-restrictive relative

Cross-sentential anaphora can pick out the correct referent for theantecedent of parallel non-restrictive RCs (Demirdache, 1991, p. 114–116).
(33) Non-restrictive RCs and parallel cross-sentential anaphora:
a.

i. I saw Mary, [RC who was late].
ii. I saw Maryi . Shei/∗j was late.

b.

i. I go there [whenever I have time], [RC which isn’t actually
very often].
ii. I go there [whenever I have time]i . It/thati/∗j isn’t actually
very often.
(Sells, 1985)

34

The antecedent of a non-restrictive relative
Non-restrictive relatives are only compatible with referring expressions.
The availability of cross-sentential anaphora patterns with non-restrictiveRCs:(34) Limits on antecedents of non-restrictives, cross-sent. anaphora:a. Indefinites:✓(Emonds, 1979, p. 236)✓

i. { One, some, *each, *no} student at this conference, [RC
who I talked toon the phone], is happy.
ii. [{✓ One, ✓ some, *each, *no} student at this conference]i ishappy. I talked to him/heri on the phone.
b. Non-specific indefinite under neg:

(Demirdache, 1991, p. 134)i.

* I didn’t see a donkey, [RC who/which eats too much].

ii.

* I didn’t see a donkeyi . Iti eats too much.
35

Proposal

Proposal: Following Sells (1985); Demirdache (1991); Del Gobbo (2007),
we can dynamically refer to the E-type referent denoted by theantecedent of a non-restrictive RC.
For Mary, whose brother I met at SuB:(35) antecedentRC = Mary

36

Proposal
Proposal: We contextually restrict the alternative denotation of therelative pronoun. For Mary, whose brother I met at SuB:
(36)

oa. JwhoK undefined
b.

(37)

f

JwhoK = {antecedentRC } = {Mary}oa. Jwhose brotherK undefinedfb. Jwhose brotherK = {John (= Mary’s brother)}(38)oa. JRCK undefined
fb. JRCK = {(λx . I met x at SuB)(John)}= {I met John at SuB}
Notice that there is no step in this computation where we compute theλx . I met x ’s brother at SuB.”
property “λx37Proposal
Proposal: We contextually restrict the alternative denotation of therelative pronoun. For Mary, whose brother I met at SuB:
(36)

oa. JwhoK undefined
b.

(37)

f

JwhoK = {antecedentRC } = {Mary}oa. Jwhose brotherK undefinedfb. Jwhose brotherK = {John (= Mary’s brother)}(38)oa. JRCK undefined
fb. JRCK = {(λx . I met x at SuB)(John)}= {I met John at SuB}
Notice that there is no step in this computation where we compute theλx . I met x ’s brother at SuB.”
property “λx37Proposal
Proposal: We contextually restrict the alternative denotation of therelative pronoun. For Mary, whose brother I met at SuB:
(36)

oa. JwhoK undefined
b.

(37)

f

JwhoK = {antecedentRC } = {Mary}oa. Jwhose brotherK undefinedfb. Jwhose brotherK = {John (= Mary’s brother)}(38)oa. JRCK undefined
fb. JRCK = {(λx . I met x at SuB)(John)}= {I met John at SuB}
Notice that there is no step in this computation where we compute theλx . I met x ’s brother at SuB.”
property “λx37Proposal
Proposal: We contextually restrict the alternative denotation of therelative pronoun. For Mary, whose brother I met at SuB:
(36)

oa. JwhoK undefined
b.

(37)

f

JwhoK = {antecedentRC } = {Mary}oa. Jwhose brotherK undefinedfb. Jwhose brotherK = {John (= Mary’s brother)}(38)oa. JRCK undefined
fb. JRCK = {(λx . I met x at SuB)(John)}= {I met John at SuB}
Notice that there is no step in this computation where we compute theλx . I met x ’s brother at SuB.”
property “λx37Proposal

Proposal: An operator at the edge of the pied-piping introduces the
projective meaning of the non-restrictive relative (cf Potts, 2005).
f(39) [ Op RC ] : for ϕ ∈ JRCK , ϕ is true(40) [ Op [RC whose brother I met at SuB ] ] ;“I met Mary’s brother at SuB” is true38

Proposal

Proposal: An operator at the edge of the pied-piping introduces the
projective meaning of the non-restrictive relative (cf Potts, 2005).
f(39) [ Op RC ] : for ϕ ∈ JRCK , ϕ is true(40) [ Op [RC whose brother I met at SuB ] ] ;“I met Mary’s brother at SuB” is true38

Non-singleton referents?
Q: Are there cases where the meaning of the non-restrictive RC ranges
over a set of individuals?
A: Apparently no. Even if a plurality is described, it is described
together as a single, plural individual.
(41)

a. Every mother whose son is in the army is concerned.
⇒ each (relevant) mother has her own son
restrictive
b. Mary and Sue, whose son is in the army, are concerned.
⇒ Mary and Sue have a son together.
non-restrictive☞ Non-restrictive RCs do not “distribute” over individuals; there isalways a single referent (possibly a plurality) which is described.
(See also discussion of Weakest Crossover in Lasnik and Stowell (1991).)39

Non-singleton referents?
Q: Are there cases where the meaning of the non-restrictive RC ranges
over a set of individuals?
A: Apparently no. Even if a plurality is described, it is described
together as a single, plural individual.
(41)

a. Every mother whose son is in the army is concerned.
⇒ each (relevant) mother has her own son
restrictive
b. Mary and Sue, whose son is in the army, are concerned.
⇒ Mary and Sue have a son together.
non-restrictive☞ Non-restrictive RCs do not “distribute” over individuals; there isalways a single referent (possibly a plurality) which is described.
(See also discussion of Weakest Crossover in Lasnik and Stowell (1991).)39

Non-singleton referents?
Q: Are there cases where the meaning of the non-restrictive RC ranges
over a set of individuals?
A: Apparently no. Even if a plurality is described, it is described
together as a single, plural individual.
(41)

a. Every mother whose son is in the army is concerned.
⇒ each (relevant) mother has her own son
restrictive
b. Mary and Sue, whose son is in the army, are concerned.
⇒ Mary and Sue have a son together.
non-restrictive☞ Non-restrictive RCs do not “distribute” over individuals; there isalways a single referent (possibly a plurality) which is described.
(See also discussion of Weakest Crossover in Lasnik and Stowell (1991).)39

Non-singleton referents?
Q: Are there cases where the meaning of the non-restrictive RC ranges
over a set of individuals?
A: Apparently no. Even if a plurality is described, it is described
together as a single, plural individual.
(41)

a. Every mother whose son is in the army is concerned.
⇒ each (relevant) mother has her own son
restrictive
b. Mary and Sue, whose son is in the army, are concerned.
⇒ Mary and Sue have a son together.
non-restrictive☞ Non-restrictive RCs do not “distribute” over individuals; there isalways a single referent (possibly a plurality) which is described.
(See also discussion of Weakest Crossover in Lasnik and Stowell (1991).)39

Comparison to bindingfNote that because we contextually restrict JwhK to be a singleton set, thisis in eﬀect a lot like coindexation/binding.
(42) Maryi , [[whoi ’s brother] I met at SuB],☞ The crucial diﬀerence is that we are computing the RPPP using
Rooth-Hamblin alternatives (albeit a singleton set), which makes it
susceptible to intervention eﬀects.

40Comparison to bindingfNote that because we contextually restrict JwhK to be a singleton set, thisis in eﬀect a lot like coindexation/binding.
(42) Maryi , [[whoi ’s brother] I met at SuB],☞ The crucial diﬀerence is that we are computing the RPPP using
Rooth-Hamblin alternatives (albeit a singleton set), which makes it
susceptible to intervention eﬀects.

40Summary
Non-restrictive relatives are proposition-denoting (Del Gobbo, 2007).
☞ The denotation of RC is constructed without first composing thecorresponding predicate.
• This is crucially the case because we are able to restrict thedenotation of the relative pronoun in the non-restrictive relative.
(43) In-situ interpretation of RPPP in non-restrictive RCs:
[RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
Such a solution cannot work for restrictive relatives, which modifies
nominal domains, not entire referents.
41

Summary
Non-restrictive relatives are proposition-denoting (Del Gobbo, 2007).
☞ The denotation of RC is constructed without first composing thecorresponding predicate.
• This is crucially the case because we are able to restrict thedenotation of the relative pronoun in the non-restrictive relative.
(43) In-situ interpretation of RPPP in non-restrictive RCs:
[RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
Such a solution cannot work for restrictive relatives, which modifies
nominal domains, not entire referents.
41

Summary

Restrictive relatives are property-denoting.
☞ Restrictive relatives cannot use Rooth-Hamblin alternatives for theirinterpretation. They must use a movement strategy (Kayne, 1994).
(44) Covert movement of wh-pronoun in restrictive RCs:
[RC wh. λy [[RPPP ... y. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]] .

42

Implications

The current proposal brings RPPP in line with other instances ofpied-piping, in questions and focus constructions.
• Pied-piping in all of these cases is interpreted through a combinationof movement and Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation.
• All pied-piping constituents are sensitive to intervention eﬀects.

43Implications

This proposal helps explain why a wh-pronoun must be used with
non-restrictive RCs, but a that/∅ strategy is available to restrictive RCs.
(45) Non-restrictive relatives can’t be introduced by that/∅:a.
b.

Every semanticist [RC that/∅ I met* Mary, [RC that/∅ I met

at SuB] gave a great talk.

at SuB], gave a great talk.

☞ Only the wh-pronoun strategy can lead to a propositional denotation
for RC, because of the semantic contribution of the wh.

44

Implications

This proposal helps explain why a wh-pronoun must be used with
non-restrictive RCs, but a that/∅ strategy is available to restrictive RCs.
(45) Non-restrictive relatives can’t be introduced by that/∅:a.
b.

Every semanticist [RC that/∅ I met* Mary, [RC that/∅ I met

at SuB] gave a great talk.

at SuB], gave a great talk.

☞ Only the wh-pronoun strategy can lead to a propositional denotation
for RC, because of the semantic contribution of the wh.

44

Implications

This proposal explains why relative pronoun pied-piping in
non-restrictive RCs can be substantially larger than in restrictive RCs.
☞ This is due to the semantics of Rooth-Hamblin alternatives.
• R-H alternatives are insensitive to syntactic barriers such as islands,

but they are susceptible to intervention eﬀects.
• Movement, used to interpret restrictive RCs, is sensitive to islands.

45

Implications

This proposal explains why relative pronoun pied-piping in
non-restrictive RCs can be substantially larger than in restrictive RCs.
☞ This is due to the semantics of Rooth-Hamblin alternatives.
• R-H alternatives are insensitive to syntactic barriers such as islands,

but they are susceptible to intervention eﬀects.
• Movement, used to interpret restrictive RCs, is sensitive to islands.

45

Roadmap§1 Background§2 New evidence from intervention eﬀects§3 Proposal§4 Conclusion

46

Conclusion

Today we investigated the structure and interpretation of English
relatives with relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP).
We argued that restrictive and non-restrictive relatives havefundamentally diﬀerent semantic interpretations.

Restrictive-relatives are property-denoting, while non-restrictive relatives
are proposition-denoting (Del Gobbo, 2007).

47

Conclusion

Today we investigated the structure and interpretation of English
relatives with relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP).
We argued that restrictive and non-restrictive relatives havefundamentally diﬀerent semantic interpretations.

Restrictive-relatives are property-denoting, while non-restrictive relatives
are proposition-denoting (Del Gobbo, 2007).

47

Conclusion☞ RPPP in non-restrictive relatives is interpreted via Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation, with the wh relative pronoun in-situ.
(46) [RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
☞ RPPP in restrictive relatives is interpreted via covert movement(Kayne, 1994, a.o.).
(47) [RC wh. λy [[RPPP ... y. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]] .

48

Conclusion☞ RPPP in non-restrictive relatives is interpreted via Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation, with the wh relative pronoun in-situ.
(46) [RC [[.RPPP ... wh. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]].
☞ RPPP in restrictive relatives is interpreted via covert movement(Kayne, 1994, a.o.).
(47) [RC wh. λy [[RPPP ... y. ... ]. λx . ... x. ...]] .

48

Thank you!

Thank you! Questions?
For comments and discussion we would like to thank Martin Hackl, DannyFox, David Pesetsky, Chris Kennedy, Gary Thoms, and audiences at CLS 51
and McGill. The second author is supported by a Mellon fellowship at
McGill University. Errors are each other’s.
Handouts and slides at http://mitcho.com and http://hkotek.com.

49

References I
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention eﬀects follow from focus interpretation. Natural
Language Semantics 14:1–56.
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 2006. Intervention eﬀects in alternative
questions. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 9:165–208.
Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping.
Oxford.
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53:520–542.
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of
government and binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Del Gobbo, Francesca. 2007. On the syntax and semantics of appositive relative
clauses. In Parentheticals, ed. Nicole Dehe and Yordanka Kavalova, number 106
in Linguistik Aktuell, 173–201. John Benjamins.

50

References II
Demirdache, Hamida Khadiga. 1991. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives,appositives, and dislocation structures. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. Academic
Press.
Emonds, Joseph. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry
10:211–243.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Hadas Kotek. 2014. Intervention in focus
pied-piping. In Proceedings of NELS 43, ed. Hsin-Lun Huang, Ethan Poole, andAmanda Rysling, volume 1, 117–130. URL
http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WIzNzViN/
erlewine-kotek-nels2013-preprint.pdf.
Hamblin, Charles. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language
10:41–53.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar.
Blackwell.

51

References III
Jackendoﬀ, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press.
Jackendoﬀ, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. MIT Press.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. In Notes from the linguistic
underground, ed. James D. McCawley, volume 7 of Syntax and Semantics,
363–385. Academic Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press.
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Composing questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Kotek, Hadas. 2015. Generalized intervention and the architecture of Grammar.
Manuscript.
Kotek, Hadas, and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. to appear. Covert pied-piping in
English multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry URL
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001736/current.pdf.
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In The architecture of focus,
105–136. Mouton de Gruyter.

52

References IV
Lasnik, Howard, and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22.
McCawley, James. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of english. University of
Chicago Press.
McCawley, James D. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses.
Lingua 53:99–139.
Nanni, Debbie L., and Justine T. Stillings. 1978. Three remarks on pied piping.
Linguistic Inquiry 9:310–318.
Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. Some transformational extensions of Montague
grammar. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2.
Potts, Christopher. 2002. The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as andappositive-which. Syntax 5:55–88.
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University
Press.
Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge.

53References V
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics
1:75–116.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Safir, Ken. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic
Inquiry 17:663–689.
Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in A-chains. Linguistic Inquiry
30:587–620.
Sauerland, Uli, and Fabian Heck. 2003. LF-intervention eﬀects in pied-piping. In
Proceedings of NELS 33, 347–366.
Sells, Peter. 1985. Restrictive and non-restrictive modification. Technical Report
CSLI-85-28, Center for Study of Language and Information, Stanford.
de Vries, Mark. 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization: On specifying
coordination, false free relatives, and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37:229–270.

54

References VI
von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. Against LF pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics 4.
von Stechow, Arnim. 2000. Some remarks on choice functions and LF-movement.
In Reference and anaphoric relations, ed. Klaus von Heusinger and Urs Egli,
193–228. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2001. Partial movement constructions, pied piping, andhigher order choice functions. In Audiatur vox sapientiae. a festschrift for Arnim
von Stechow, 473–486.
Taglicht, Josef. 1972. A new look at English relative constructions. Lingua 29:1–22.
Thorne, James Peter. 1972. On nonrestrictive relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry
3:552–556.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2007. Pragmatics of LF intervention eﬀects: Japanese andKorean interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics 39:1570–1590.
Wagner, Michael. 2006. Association by movement: evidence from NPI-licensing.
Natural Language Semantics 14:297–324.

55

Non-singleton referents?
Describing a plurality vs quantifying over individuals is a distinguishing
characteristic between non-restrictive and restrictive RCs.
(48) Carlson (1977):a.

The men, of whom all were astronauts, left.

b.

* The men of whom all were astronauts left.

(49) Adding ‘all’ in the RC forces non-restrictive RC:a.

b.

The linguists who chose not to go to SuB regretted theirdecision, because [the linguists(,) [RC who went]](,) had fun.
i.

✓

ii.

# non-restrictive: infelicitous because of preceding
context

restrictive: two sets of linguists# The linguists who chose not to go to SuB regretted theirdecision, because the linguists(,) who all went(,) had fun.
i.

* restrictive: two sets of linguistsii.

# non-restrictive: infelicitous because of preceding56

Reconstruction of the RPPP
Safir (1999) argues that R-expressions which are pied-piped trigger
condition C just like they do in wh-questions:(50) Condition C in questions
a. ?? Which picture of Johni does hei like?
b.

✓

I bought the picture of Johni that hei liked(51) Condition C in RPPPa.

* I always respect a journalist [whose depiction of Jessei ]j hei
objects to tj

b. ?? Max, [whose depiction of Jessei ]j hei objects to tj ...
c.

✓

I always respect a journalist [whose depiction of Jessei ]j tj
oﬀends himid.

✓Max, [whose depiction of Jessei ]j tj oﬀends himi ...
57

Weakest Crossover
Lasnik and Stowell (1991) notes that WCO seems to aﬀect restrictive RCs
but not non-restrictive RCs: (Judgments diﬀer from Chomsky (1982).)(52) Restrictive RCs:a.

* the mani whoi [hisi mother] loves tib.

* the booki whichi [itsi author] read ti(53) Non-restrictive RCs:a.

Geraldi , whoi [hisi mother] loves ti ], is a nice guy.

b.

This booki , whichi [itsi author] wrote ti last week, is a hit.

See also ?Safir (1986).

58

Intervention in RPPP
A similar pattern can be observed with other wh-words:(54) I hope to someday meet the President,

(55)

a.

✓

[RC [RPPP a cousin of whom] I’ve met

before].

b.

✓[RC [RPPP the supporters of whom] areout of their minds].

c.

* [RC [RPPP no supporters of whom] I’ve (ever) metd.

* [RC [RPPP only [one]F supporter of whom] I’ve (ever) met

before].

e.

* [RC [RPPP very few supporters of whom] I’ve (ever) met

before].

a.

✓[RC [RPPP of whom] I’ve met no supporters

before].

b.

✓[RC [RPPP who(m)] I’ve met no supporters ofbefore].

before].

59Intervention in RPPP
A similar pattern can be observed with other wh-words:(54) I hope to someday meet the President,

(55)

a.

✓

[RC [RPPP a cousin of whom] I’ve met

before].

b.

✓[RC [RPPP the supporters of whom] areout of their minds].

c.

* [RC [RPPP no supporters of whom] I’ve (ever) metd.

* [RC [RPPP only [one]F supporter of whom] I’ve (ever) met

before].

e.

* [RC [RPPP very few supporters of whom] I’ve (ever) met

before].

a.

✓[RC [RPPP of whom] I’ve met no supporters

before].

b.

✓[RC [RPPP who(m)] I’ve met no supporters ofbefore].

before].

59

Partitives
There is, however, more to this story. The addition of a partitive layer
allows us to get around intervention. (Gary Thoms, p.c.)(56) Avoiding intervention with a partitive (Gary Thoms, p.c.):a.

* This recipe, [[no ingredients for which] I have at home], is...

b.

✓This recipe, [[none of the ingredients for which] I have athome], is...

c.

✓This recipe, [[only some of the ingredients for which] I haveat home], is...

☞ Perhaps the partitive structure allows for covert movement of asmaller wh-containing phrase, within the RPPP. Relative pronouns
are susceptible to intervention only if they cannot be covertly moved
to the edge.
60Partitives
There is, however, more to this story. The addition of a partitive layer
allows us to get around intervention. (Gary Thoms, p.c.)(56) Avoiding intervention with a partitive (Gary Thoms, p.c.):a.

* This recipe, [[no ingredients for which] I have at home], is...

b.

✓This recipe, [[none of the ingredients for which] I have athome], is...

c.

✓This recipe, [[only some of the ingredients for which] I haveat home], is...

☞ Perhaps the partitive structure allows for covert movement of asmaller wh-containing phrase, within the RPPP. Relative pronouns
are susceptible to intervention only if they cannot be covertly moved
to the edge.
60

Pied-piping in overt focus movement
Erlewine and Kotek (2014) show that intervention eﬀects also aﬀect overt
focus movement.
The pivot in English it-clefts can be considered to be a form of pied-piping
movement (Krifka, 2006):(57) Pied-piping in it-clefts:
John read a. book from
. THIS. F library. ..
a. It’s [THISF library] that John read a book from.

b. It’s [from THISF library] that John read a book.

c. It’s [a book from THISF library] that John read.

61

Pied-piping in overt focus movement
Erlewine and Kotek (2014) show that intervention eﬀects also aﬀect overt
focus movement.
The pivot in English it-clefts can be considered to be a form of pied-piping
movement (Krifka, 2006):(57) Pied-piping in it-clefts:
John read a. book from
. THIS. F library. ..
a. It’s [THISF library] that John read a book from.

b. It’s [from THISF library] that John read a book.

c. It’s [a book from THISF library] that John read.

61

Pied-piping in overt focus movement
Erlewine and Kotek (2014) show that intervention eﬀects also aﬀect overt
focus movement.
The pivot in English it-clefts can be considered to be a form of pied-piping
movement (Krifka, 2006):(57) Pied-piping in it-clefts:
John read a. book from
. THIS. F library. ..
a. It’s [THISF library] that John read a book from.

b. It’s [from THISF library] that John read a book.

c. It’s [a book from THISF library] that John read.

61

Pied-piping in overt focus movement
Erlewine and Kotek (2014) show that intervention eﬀects also aﬀect overt
focus movement.
The pivot in English it-clefts can be considered to be a form of pied-piping
movement (Krifka, 2006):(57) Pied-piping in it-clefts:
John read a. book from
. THIS. F library. ..
a. It’s [THISF library] that John read a book from.

b. It’s [from THISF library] that John read a book.

c. It’s [a book from THISF library] that John read.

61

Pied-piping in overt focus movement

The it-cleft associates with focus inside the pivot (Jackendoﬀ, 1972; Krifka,
2006). Therefore it-clefts are interpreted using both movement andalternative computation, much like wh-pied-piping:(58) It’s [pied-piping a. book from THIS
. F library] λx. John read x.. .
Rooth-Hamblin alternatives

movement

62

Pied-piping in overt focus movement

The it-cleft associates with focus inside the pivot (Jackendoﬀ, 1972; Krifka,
2006). Therefore it-clefts are interpreted using both movement andalternative computation, much like wh-pied-piping:(58) It’s [pied-piping a. book from THIS
. F library] λx. John read x.. .
Rooth-Hamblin alternatives

movement

62

Pied-piping in overt focus movement

The it-cleft associates with focus inside the pivot (Jackendoﬀ, 1972; Krifka,
2006). Therefore it-clefts are interpreted using both movement andalternative computation, much like wh-pied-piping:(58) It’s [pied-piping a. book from THIS
. F library] λx. John read x.. .
Rooth-Hamblin alternatives

movement

62

Intervention in overt focus movement

There is intervention in focus pied-piping(59) Intervention in it-cleft pivots:

(60)

a.

* It’s [no book from THISF library] that John read.

b.

It’s [from THISF library] that John read no book.

c.

It’s [THISF library] that John read no book from.

a.

* It’s [few books from THISF library] that John readb.

* It’s [onlyi BOOKSF,i from THISF library] that John read.
.

63