Relative pronoun pied-piping,
the structure of which informs
the analysis of relative clauses
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine and Hadas Kotek
McGill University{michael.erlewine,hadas.kotek}@mcgill.ca

CLS 51
April 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:
for help]][DP The person [RC [RPPP whose parrot] John asked
thinks John is an idiot.
2

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

3

Roadmap§1 Background• the interpretation of relative clauses• the problem of pied-piping and two approaches• a note on the size of pied-piping§2 New evidence from intervention effects§3 Proposal§4 Conclusion and open questions

4

Interpreting restrictive RCs

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

5

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

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 CLS,” is derived by combining thereferent described, Mary, with the predicate “λx . I met x at CLS.”

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 CLS.”☞ This predicate “λx. I met x at CLS” is formed through movement of
the relative pronoun, interpreted as λ -abstraction.
RC

RC
who
TP

→ who

I met t at CLS
(

λx

TP
I met x at CLS

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 CLS]...
RC

whose brotherRC

TP→ whose brotherI met t at CLS

λx

TP

I met x at CLS

Again, movement and λ-abstraction gives us “λx . I met x at CLS.”
But this is not the predicate we want. For the correct interpretation,
we need to somehow derive “λx . I met [x’s brother] at CLS.”
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)[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)
2 Interpret the pied-piping as is, with the relative pronoun in-situ)

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

9

A note on the size of pied-piping
Why do we claim this just for non-restrictive RCs? For methodologicalreasons, we need to look at larger pied-piping.
☞ Non-restrictive RCs allows for larger pied-piping than restrictives(Emonds, 1976, 1979; Jackendoff, 1977; Nanni and Stillings, 1978, a.o.).

(7) 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.

10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

11

New evidence from intervention effects

Today we advocate for interpreting the wh relative pronoun in-situ inside
the pied-piping, specifically using Rooth-Hamblin alternative
computation (squiggly arrow) (Hamblin, 1973; Rooth, 1985, a.o.).
(8) [RC [[RPPP who’s brother] λx . I met x...]]
Evidence for this approach comes from intervention effects...

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, last week)(9) Intervention affects alternatives, not movement:a.

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

✓

[CP C ... wh intervener ... t ]13

Alternative computation and intervention effects(10) 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-o dare-mo

yom-ana-katta-no?

what-ACC no.one

read-NEG-PAST-Q‘What did no one read?’
Examples from Tomioka (2007).
14

Wh-pied-piping and intervention effects

We can also observe intervention effects in wh-question pied-piping.
(11) 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?

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: (Cable, 2007, exx)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:*[pied−piping ... intervener ... wh ]16

Predictions for RPPP

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 ...]]

Interpret the pied-piping using focus-alternatives 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) is also sensitive to this formof 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 (Kotek and Erlewine, to appear; Erlewine and Kotek, 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...] (=16b)b.

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

at home]c.

✓[RC [RP which] I have no ingredients forat 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 is interpreted using Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation, but not if RPPP is interpreted 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

A note on restrictive RC

Recall that restrictive relatives do not allow larger RPPP, and therefore wecannot test this intervention effect:
(21)

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].

23

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

24

Proposal
We propose that RPPP in English non-restrictive RC are interpreted using
Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation.
(22) [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.).
• Sternefeld (2001); Sauerland and Heck (2003) discuss such an

approach to RPPP.
25

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.).
(23) [ C [TP Alex likes who ]]oOrdinary semantic values are computed using J·K and the alternatives
f(focus semantic values) using J·K (Rooth, 1992, a.o.).
(24) The denotation of a wh-word:(Beck, 2006)oa. JwhoK undefinedfb. JwhoK = the set of human individuals = {Bobby, Chris, Dana...}26

Alternative computationfo

J·K is computed recursively, like J·K , composing alternatives pointwise.
(25)

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 questionfdenotation (Beck and Kim, 2006, a.o.). The alternatives in JTPK
correspond to possible answers to the question.

27

Alternative computation
This works for the interpretation of wh-question pied-piping, too.
(26) [ [PP whose brother] [ λx [ you like x ] ] ]f(27) Jwhose
brotherK = the set of brothers
=




John
(=
Bobby’sbrother),Bill (= Chris’s brother), Fred (= Dana’s brother) 





 λw . you like John (= Bobby’s brother) in w, f(28) J(26)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.
28

Alternative computation for RPPP

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

29

Alternative computation for RPPP

(30) The denotation of a wh-word:(Beck, 2006)oa. JwhoK undefinedfb. JwhoK = the set of humans = {Bobby, Chris, Dana,...}(31)oa. Jwhose brotherK undefinedfb. Jwhose brotherK = the set of brothers = {John, Bill, Fred,...}
Problem: The resulting meaning is simply a set of individuals who aresomeone’s brother. We can’t use this to construct the function fromindividuals to their brothers (Rooth 1992 fn. 15, citing Ede Zimmermann(p.c.); Sternefeld 2001; Sauerland and Heck 2003).

30

Alternative computation for RPPP

Important: Non-restrictive RCs are only compatible with referring
expressions (Thorne, 1972; Karttunen, 1976; McCawley, 1988; Potts, 2002, a.o.).
Following Potts (2005), we can dynamically refer to this e-type referent.

31

Proposal
Proposal: We contextually restrict the alternative denotation of therelative pronoun. For Mary, whose brother I met at CLS:(32)

oa. JwhoK undefined
b.

(33)

f

JwhoK = {Mary}oa. Jwhose brotherK undefinedfb. Jwhose brotherK = {Andrew (= Mary’s brother)}(34)oa. JRCK undefined
fb. JRCK = {(λx . I met x at CLS)(Mary)}= {I met Mary at CLS}

32

Proposal

Proposal: an operator at the edge of the pied-piping introduces the
projective meaning of the non-restrictive relative (Potts, 2005).
f(35) [ Op RC ] : for ϕ ∈ JRCK , ϕ is true(36) [ Op [RC whose brother I met at CLS ] :“I met Mary’s brother at CLS” is true

33

Comparison to bindingfNote that because we contextually restrict JwhK to be a singleton set, thisis in effect a lot like coindexation/binding.
(37) Maryi , [[whoi ’s brother] I met at CLS],☞ 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.

34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.
(38)

a. Every mother whose son is in the army is concerned.
⇒ each (relevant) mother has their 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).)35

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

36

Conclusion
Today we investigated the structure and interpretation of English
non-restrictive relatives with relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP).
☞ We propose that the RPPP is interpreted via Rooth-Hamblin
alternative computation, with the wh relative pronoun in-situ.
(39) [RC [[RPPP ... wh ... ] λx . ... x ...]]• The relative pronoun projects a set of alternatives but lacks an

ordinary semantic value, like interrogative wh-words (Beck, 2006, a.o.).
• But unlike in interrogatives, this set is contextually restricted to thesingle referent described by the relative.
37

Partitives
There is, however, more to this story. The addition of a partitive layer
allows us to get around intervention. (Gary Thoms, p.c.)(40) 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.
38

Restrictive relatives

In future work, we hope to investigate the interpretation of RPPP in
restrictive RCs.
• Is alternative computation used?
• Is the use of alternative computation for non-restrictive RCs part of

why non-restrictive RCs allow for larger pied-piping?

39

Thank you!

Thank you! Questions?
For comments and discussion we would like to thank Martin Hackl, DannyFox, David Pesetsky, and Gary Thoms. The second author is supported bya Mellon fellowship at McGill University. Errors are each other’s.
Slides at http://mitcho.com and http://hkotek.com soon.

40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, Greg N. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53:520–542.
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of
government and binding. MIT Press.
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. Academic
Press.

41

References II
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.
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.

42References III
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press.
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Composing questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Kotek, Hadas. last week. Intervention everywhere! Presentation at GLOW 38.
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,
ed. Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler, 105–136. Mouton de Gruyter.
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.

43

References IV
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.
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University
Press.
Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge.
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.

44

References V
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.
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 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.
de Vries, Mark. 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization: On specifying
coordination, false free relatives, and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37:229–270.

45

Non-singleton referents?
In fact, describing a plurality vs quantifying over individuals is adistinguishing characteristic between non-restrictive and restrictive RCs.
(41) Carlson (1977):a.

The men, of whom all were astronauts, left.

b.

* The men of whom all were astronauts left.

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

b.

The linguists who chose not to go to CLS 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 CLS regretted theirdecision, because the linguists(,) who all went(,) had fun.
i.

* restrictive: two sets of linguistsii.

# non-restrictive: infelicitous because of preceding46

Reconstruction of the RPPP
Safir (1999) argues that R-expressions which are pied-piped trigger
condition C just like they do in wh-questions:(43) Condition C in questions
a. ?? Which picture of Johni does hei like?
b.

✓

I bought the picture of Johni that hei liked(44) 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 ...
47

Weakest Crossover
Lasnik and Stowell (1991) notes that WCO seems to affect restrictive RCs
but not non-restrictive RCs: (Judgments differ from Chomsky (1982).)(45) Restrictive RCs:a.

* the mani whoi [hisi mother] loves tib.

* the booki whichi [itsi author] read ti(46) 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).

48

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):(47) Pied-piping in it-clefts:
John read a book from THISF 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.

49

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:(48) It’s [pied-piping a book from THISF library] λx John read x.
Rooth-Hamblin alternatives

movement50

Intervention in overt focus movement

There is intervention in focus pied-piping(49) Intervention in it-cleft pivots:

(50)

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.
.

51