Correlative clauses are of type CP: Evidence from

Correlative clauses (CorrCs) are a subtype of internally-headed relative clauses (IHRCs), as the head of the relative clause occurs inside of the relative clause. However, CorrCs differ from the more common type of IHRCs in that the relative clause is outside of the matrix clause. Coreference of the shared argument between the matrix and the relative clause is established via pronoun binding (Dryer 2013). CorrCs are commonly described for Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and Tibeto-Burman languages. The sentence in (1) exemplifies a CorrC for Hindi.

(1) [jo laRkiii khaRii hai] voi lambii hai REL girl standing COP DEM tall COP ‘The firl who is standing is tall.’ (from Srivastav 1991)

I argue that South Bolivian Quechua (SBQ, ISO code: quh) exhibits CorrCs. While are known for having IHRCs (Cole et al. 1982, Cole 1987, Lefebvre & Muysken 1988, Hastings 2004), it has been reported that SBQ lacks this construction (Cole et al. 1982). Providing novel data, I show that SBQ does in fact exhibit relative clauses that are internally-headed; however, the relevant construction in SBQ is better described as a CorrC. Cross-linguistically, CorrCs exhibit some common typological characteristics, namely (i) they always appear at the left edge of the matrix clause with which they share an argument (Srivastav 1991, Andrews 2007); (ii) they allow full TAM marking on the (Andrews 2007); and (iii) they are internally-headed (Andrews 2007, Dryer 2013). Despite having been reported for a number of different languages, CorrCs lack a unified analysis which accounts for these typological characteristics, and the positional restriction on this construction remains unexplained. As such, the goals of this paper are (i) to offer a unified formal account of the syntax of CorrCs from which the construction’s common typological characteristics can be derived, and (ii) to explain why CorrCs may only appear at the left edge of a matrix clause. Using data from SBQ, I claim that CorrCs are of type CP, and crucially, that unlike other kinds of relative clauses, these CP constituents are not contained inside of a DP (Bhatt 2002). I further argue that the three common typological characteristics of CorrCs listed above (i-iii) derive from this simple analytical observation. First, the fact that CorrCs cannot occur in argument position inside of a matrix clause follows naturally from the claim that CorrCs are of type CP, and not of type DP. If CorrCs are not contained inside of a DP, then we do not expect these constituents to show the distributional characteristics of other DP arguments. Indeed, this prediction is borne out by the SBQ data in (2), where the CorrC may only appear at the left edge of the matrix clause (2a), but may not appear inside of the matrix clause, in either pre-verbal (2b) or post-verbal position (2c)1.

(2) a. [Leo yuyana-ta qellqa-ri-chi-rqa] noqa reqsi-ni Leo story-ACC write-POLI-CAUS-3.PST 1SG know-1SG ‘I know the story that Leo wrote.’ b. *Noqa [Leo yuyana-ta qellqa-ri-chi-rqa] reqsi-ni 1SG Leo story-ACC write-POLI-CAUS-3.PST know-1SG c. *Noqa reqsi-ni [Leo yuyana-ta qellqa-ri-chi-rqa] 1SG know-1SG Leo story-ACC write-POLI-CAUS-3.PST

The fact that CorrCs in SBQ may only appear at the left edge of a matrix clause is a characteristic commonly described for other types of clauses, such as adjunct clauses (Adger 2002). Following Srivastav (1991) and Dayal (1996), I argue that CorrCs are left-adjoined to TP of the matrix clause. The claim that CorrCs are adjuncts of type CP is supported by evidence of CorrC stacking at the left edge of a matrix clause in SBQ, as in (3).

(3) [Leo yuyana-ta qellqa-ri-chi-rqa] [Pichana arawi rima-y-ku-rqa] [Emilia Leo story-ACC write-POLI-CAUS-3.PST Pichana poem speak-NMLZ-REFL-3.PST Emilia tusu-y qhawa-ri-chi-rqa] noqa muna-ku-ni dance-NMLZ see-CAUS-3.PST 1SG like-PL-1SG ‘I like the story that Leo wrote, the poem that Pichana said, and the dance that Emilia presented.’

As there appears to be no limit to the number of CorrCs that can appear at the left edge of a matrix clause, the data in (3) supports the idea that CorrCs are indeed left-adjoined to their matrix clause. Furthermore, because CorrCs are adjoined to the matrix clause, they must rely on pronoun binding (rather than extraction of a relative pronoun) to establish coreference between the shared argument of the matrix and correlative clauses. Specifically, the head of the CorrC yuyanata binds a pronoun pro2 in the matrix clause, as in (4). Coreference is established in accord with the binding requirements on pronouns, namely (i) pronouns are bound by an antecedent external to the clause in which they are contained (Chomsky 1981), and (ii) the antecedent must linearly precede the bound pronoun (Bruening 2014). The fact that CorrCs must appear at the left edge of a matrix clause, and specifically that they cannot appear at its right edge, follows naturally from binding requirement (ii).

(4) [CP[CP Leo yuyana-tai qellqa-ri-chi-rqa] noqa proi reqsi-ni] Leo story-ACC write-POLI-CAUS-3.PST 1SG VARi know-1SG ‘I know the story that Leo wrote.’

Finally, because CorrCs are of type CP, they always allow full TAM marking on the verb, just as in the case of other full clauses. This observation is in opposition to the fact that the more common nominalized IHRC construction generally exhibits reduced TAM marking (Culy 1990, Basilico 1996, Andrews 2007), as is the case for other Quechuan languages (Cole et al. 1982, Cole 1987, Lefebvre & Muysken 1988, Hastings 2004). This paper contributes to the typological literature on CorrCs, as it presents novel data on CorrCs from a (i.e., Quechuan) for which the construction had not previously been described. Specifically, SBQ does present relative clauses that are internally-headed; however, these exhibit a strict positional restriction that is characteristic of CorrC constructions. This paper further provides a unified account of the syntax of CorrCs, according to which CorrCs are of type CP. This analysis derives some common characteristics of CorrCs, namely the fact that they may only appear at the left edge of matrix clause and that they allow full TAM marking on the CorrC verb.

References: Adger, D. (2002). Core syntax. London: Oxford University Press. Andrews, A. D. (2007). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.), Complex Constructions. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, (Vol. 2). New York: Cambridge University Press. Basilico, D. (1996). Head position and internally headed relative clauses. Language, 72, 498–532. Bhatt, R. (2002). The raising analysis of relative clauses: evidence from adjectival modification, Natural Language Semantics, 10, 43–90. Bhatt, R. (2003). Locality in Correlatives, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 210, 485–541. Bruening B. (2014). Precede-and- command revisited, Language, 90, 342–388. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Cole, P.; Harbert, W.; & Hermon, G. (1982). Headless Relative Clauses in Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics, 48, 113–124. Cole, P. (1987). The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 277–302. Culy, C. (1990). The Syntax and Semantics of Internally Headed Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, Stanford. Dayal, V. (1996). Locality in Wh-Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, No. 62, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Dryer, M. (2013). Order of Relative Clause and Noun. In: M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at \\http://wals.info/chapter/90, Accessed on 2018-01-08.) Hastings, R. (2004). The Syntax and Semantics of Relativization and Quantification: The Case of Quechua. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Lefebvre, C. & Muysken, P. (1988). Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Srivastav, V. (1991). The Syntax and Semantics of Correlatives, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9(4), 637–686.

1 Basic in SBQ is most commonly SOV, but SVO is also observed. 2 SBQ is a pro-drop language.