Abstract
646. This paper raises a question on exactly what the nature of Wh-word in English Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses (NRRCs) is, as opposed to that in Restrictive Relative Clauses (RRCs). Other than being equipped with a Wh-element in common, there exist overwhelming asymmetries between English RRCs and NRRCs. Based on the generalizations and disparities between RRCs and NRRCs brought forward in the literature (Quirk, et. al. 1972, 1985, Borsley 1992, Kayne 1994, Borsley 1997, McCawley, 1998, Lobeck, 2000, De Vries 2002, 2006, Aoun & Li 2003, Authier & Reed 2005, Arnold & Borsley 2008) this paper examines the nature of Wh-word in English NRRCs, which has long been neglected in the generative syntax field. We argue that the Wh-word heading NRRCs is not a Wh-Operator since it shows no signature properties of (linguistic) operators; no WCO effect, no Reconstruction effect, no quantificational properties (Aoun & Li 2003, Authier & Reed 2005), whereas the Wh-word in RRC is. The formal features of the Wh-phrase in NRRC are lacking (Law 2000), so that it is argued here to be a deficient Wh-exp, or Wh-expletive with the minimal features. All in all, we argue that the Wh-word heading NRRC is not Wh-operator and the construction is a relative in disguise.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
