Abstract

We will depart from the observation that Romance languages can be subdivided into two groups with respect to free relatives under question-embedding predicates (Kellert 2017). One group has grammaticalized the definite element (e.g. Pt.[1] o, Fl. i’ ‘the’) and que/che into one question pronoun (e.g. Pt. o que ‘what’ and Fl. icche ‘what’); the other group has not (e.g. Spanish and French). We will show that in one group free relatives that are embedded under question predicates resemble more complex nouns (as in Spanish and French), whereas in the other group they are clausal and have the structure of ordinary questions as in Portuguese and Florentine. We will look at the evolution of lo que sentences in Old Spanish and demonstrate that they were used as relative clauses under non-question predicates such as ser ‘be’ and factive predicates such as ‘know’ with much higher frequency than under genuine question predicates such as preguntar ‘to ask’. We will suggest that the interrogative interpretation of lo que- relative clauses has its source in the ambiguity of factive predicates. Factive predicates can select both DPs interpreted as definite descriptions and CPs interpreted as interrogatives. Lo que-relatives can thus be interpreted as definite descriptions and as interrogatives under factive predicates. As we will argue, this ambiguous interpretation was the precondition for the use of lo que-sentences to be used in non-ambiguous question contexts. However, the reanalysis of lo que-sentences as questions has not been fully accomplished in Modern Spanish in contrast to Modern Portuguese, as these sentences still show syntactic and semantic differences from ordinary questions.[1] Fl. stands for Florentine, Sp. for Spanish, Pt. for Portuguese, and Fr. for French. Mo. for Modern and O. for Old and Mi. for Middle languages.

Highlights

  • We will depart from the observation that Romance languages can be subdivided into two groups with respect to free relatives under question-embedding predicates (Kellert 2017)

  • Stulic-Etchevers (2007) did a diachronic analysis of lo que relatives based on a restricted number of occurrences in the corpus CORDE and Corpus del Español (CDE) and came to the conclusion that lo que relatives were first used with verbs of saying, some psych-verbs like ‘see’, ‘hear’, and factive predicates like ‘know’, but not with real question predicates like ‘ask’ or negated factive predicates like ‘not know’ before the 15th century and that only after 16th century their use expanded to interrogative contexts

  • We have identified two major groups of Romance languages with respect to semifree relatives under question predicates (Q-SFRs)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We will depart from the observation that Romance languages can be subdivided into two groups with respect to free relatives under question-embedding predicates (Kellert 2017). When they are used as questions, for convenience we will label them question semi-free relatives: Q-SFR This type of question usually contains a gap in the direct object position of the embedded clause, i.e. questions that contain a gap in the adjunct position do not contain any definite element:. This type of question usually contains a gap in the direct object position of the embedded clause, i.e. questions that contain a gap in the adjunct position do not contain any definite element:3 This possibility is at odds with the nominal category that free relatives are supposed to have and this makes them a very interesting potential mismatch between form and function.. SFRs do not completely satisfy the definition of free relatives (FRs) proposed by Caponigro (2004), because they lack overt wh-morphology

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call